askandanswer

This reminds me of Revelations 10:10 10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and aate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Fountain pen day? Sounds like a good enough reason to destroy all calendars.

The sons of Mosiah had a right to the kingdom? I think one of them might have had a right before their father changed the system but I'm not sure if all of them would have had a right. Given the problems that Alma had with preaching the gospel to the Nephites in Zarahemla, as evidenced by Alma 5, it may have been better if the sons of Mosiah had preached at home. Alma 17 An account of the sons of Mosiah, who rejected their rights to the kingdom They go their several ways to declare the word to the Lamanites— When Alma was preaching in Alma 5 - 7 he seemed to do that on his own, but when teaching in potentially hostile territory, he had a companion The sons of Mosiah have the spirit of prophecy and of revelation— Wed, 1 Nov 2023 I think that almost anyone can have this gift if it is a) needed, b) sought with sufficient faith and c) the recipient is worthy. Luke I think 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that aserveth. Alma 17 Ammon goes to the land of Ishmael and becomes the servant of King Lamoni— The implication here is that the King's own subjects were his enemies. It also suggests a fairly weak centre of government if the king couldn't protect even his sheep and a lack of respect for either the king or the government if some people felt comfortable with stealing from the king so blatantly. Alma 17 Ammon saves the king’s flocks and slays his enemies at the water of Sebus This surprise hints at a lack of written communication or mail system, but given how much Alma moved around, it would be understandable if he missed a letter. Alma 17:1 behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla. It would profit me, and potentially others, if I did more of this, and with a more humble and sincere attitude. Alma 17:3 3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; 3 therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. Wed, 1 Nov 2023 These spirits are a big part of the difference between lecturing and teaching. This is quite a contrast to 3rd Nephi 27:9 9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the asins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bbring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand. Alma 17:5 for they had many afflictions; they did suffer much, both in body and in mind, such as hunger, thirst and fatigue, Its certainly a different time when all you needed to be self sufficient was your hand weapons. Alma 17:7 7 Nevertheless they departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and took their swords, and their spears, and their bows, and their arrows, and their slings; and this they did that they might provide food for themselves while in the wilderness. Would they have been less successful if they had fasted and prayed less than they did? Surely there was a close, perhaps even a perfect alignment between their will and God's will, so why was it necessary to petition His help as much as they did? At one point perhaps God didn't answer their prayers, hence they kept praying, and at another point He did. What determines how much prayer is needed in order to get a response? 9 and they fasted much and prayed much that the Lord would grant unto them a portion of his Spirit to go with them, and abide with them,

8 And it came to pass that Mosiah granted that they might go and do according to their request. 9 And they atook their journey into the wilderness to go up to preach the word among the Lamanites; and I shall give an baccount of their proceedings hereafter. 6 Now these were their journeyings: Having ataken leave of their father, Mosiah, in the bfirst year of the judges; having crefused the kingdom which their father was desirous to confer upon them, and also this was the minds of the people; My reading of this three verses suggests that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission before the reign of the judges commenced. Would it be more correct to say that the sons of Mosiah left on their mission during the last year of the reign of the kings rather than in the first year of the reign of the judges?

It was in the first couple of paragraphs, while he was summarising President Clarks' remarks. It was just a thought that came to me.

Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, Unless its a really long train, I think its going to be pretty crowded

missions caries would be quite accurate if it refers to two people who care a lot as most missionaries do.

I was listening to Elder Bednar's talk yesterday. Do you think he might have had in mind while writing the talk, that the members of the church today are figuratively in the last wagon that is on its way to Zion, and that after us, all who will be gathered will be safely gathered in?

When Christ had people staying over for dinner, the only items on the menu were bread and fish

I think that using the words and actions of a prophet as a means of determining whether or not a person is a prophet is at best a secondary means of coming to know something. The best illustration of the fallacy of this approach is 1 King 13. I think the primary means of knowing something, which I feel is far more reliable means, is a spiritual conviction that something is either X or not X. President Nelson can say on Tuesday that the moon is yellow and I look at my window and see a blue moon. On Wednesday he can say the moon is not, and never was, yellow, but is actually purple and I look out the window and see an orange moon. Neither event should have the least impact on my testimony of whether or not President Nelson is a prophet. No doubt President Nelson has good reason for saying such things and its not for me to question. But if I am living worthily and doing all that is required to receive spiritual guidance, and the Spirit says that President Nelson is not the Prophet, then I would begin to be a little wary and to start asking a few questions. I might be inclined to adjust the weighting of my priorities away from President Nelson and more towards the Quorum of the Twelve. But before doing anything serious or making any serious decisions I would give prayerful consideration to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk about doubting your doubts. I’m in favour of the idea that a spiritual conviction can/should only be overcome by another spiritual conviction and that such convictions should therefore be impervious to, and uninfluenced by, the words or actions, or the logical arguments of men. I can't see any situation at all, ever, where logic would be sufficient to overcome the promptings of the Spirit. If President Young said the Priesthood ban is doctrine and divinely inspired, (which he didn't) and President Monson, through the essays, says that the ban was never doctrine and not divinely inspired, and that President Young was wrong to say so, (and President Monson or the essays don't say that) and then someone says look, two prophets have taught the opposite teaching, both of them can't be true, therefore one of them is not a prophet, that would look very much like a logical argument. And I would hope that even a spiritual conviction that President Nelson is not the Prophet would not be enough to turn me away from the church. That particular testimony that he is the Prophet would probably be considerably damaged, more likely destroyed, but I have always been wary of what I call the connected testimony, or the single pillar testimony, whereby our several testimonies of the truthfulness of the gospel, the plan of salvation, Jesus Christ, the reality of temple work, Joseph Smith, and all the other truths of which we have a testimony are all dependent on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 93:30 "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it" and one truth should not be dependent on, or used to prop up, another truth. There is no reason why the destruction of a testimony that President Nelson is God's prophet should cause any damage to any other testimony of the truth. One truth does not depend on another truth.

This article suggests that every user of non-renewable energy is contributing to a genocide in numerous low-lieing under-deevloped nations. This particular genocide attracts very little attention because its non-violent and quite gradual. It's an odd form of genocide because while it doesn't kill all that many people, it will have devastating impacts on their places of residence and their history. It won't leave the smoking crates that JJ referred to, it will leave peaceful waves, washing over land where people used to live. It's happening now. https://www.change-climate.com/Islands_Nations_Genocide_Geographical_Oceans/Islands_A_Z_Index_Nations_Sea_Levels_Rising_Oceans_Genocide_Crimes_Criminals.htm

This reminds me so much of the parable of the wheat and the tares, that grow so closely on the same patch of ground that they almost become intertwined. And this situation is not immediately resolved, it is permitted to continue for quite some time. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the aharvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together bfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to cburn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

It sounds as if the decision to go from a monarchy to a system of judges did not have as much popular support as was suggested by Mosiah 29. Amlici seeks to be king and is rejected by the voice of the people The Lamanites on their own outnumber the Nephite/Mulekites, but even when the Lamanites are strengthened by the addition of the Amlicites, they are still unable to defeat the Nephites. That's the difference having God on your side makes. The Lamanites and Amlicites join forces and are defeated Perhaps Amlici used his religious beliefs to establish his base of political support. he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, This suggests a close alignment between political and religious philosophies. Those whose religious beliefs were aligned with Nehor wanted a monarchy and the members of the church favoured a system of judges. 3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, So perhaps ultimate law-making power still rested with the people and maybe the judges only existed to execute and enforce the law that was made by the people. I wander if this means that to become a judge you had to be voted into office? But there are some occasions when the position was given by a retiring judge to a person chosen by the retiring judge. according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people. It would be fascinating to know what the numbers were. Judging by the vigour with which the matter was debated by the people, it looks like Amlici had a fair chance to present his proposal and have it examined and considered by the people. 7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people. The numbers in the election must have been pretty tight if Amlici thought he had the numbers to make a successful war against the Nephites. 10 Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms against their brethren; There is no mention of spears here, and now that I think of it, I can't remember any references to spears in the Book of Mormon although now that I think about it Teancum killed a Lamanite king with a javelin to the heart. These are all offensive weapons. There is no mention of any defensive measures being taken. 12 Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them; yea, they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons of war, of every kind. This suggests that there was an existing store of weapons, that they didn't have to stop to make new weapons, they just grabbed what they already had. It might be a sign of an unhealthy society, or a society with problems, when people felt the need to be so close to their weapons. 14 And it came to pass that Amlici did arm his men with all manner of weapons of war of every kind; Its hard to see how Alma was different from a king. He was the religious, political and military leader of the Nephites. Alma, being the chief judge and the governor of the people of Nephi, So in a time of warfare they left the most vulnerable behind with no one to protect them. 25 and except we make haste they obtain possession of our city, and our fathers, and our wives, and our children be slain. I think that in such dire circumstances, I would have been inclined to leave my tent behind. Not only would it have taken time to pack up their tents, carrying their tents and other stuff would have slowed down their rate of travel. Alma 2:26 the people of Nephi took their tents, Later in Alma, or maybe its in Helaman, there was a time when the same thing happened but in reverse - as the enemy was crossing the Sidon the Nephites rose up from their hiding places and commenced a slaughter. And behold, as they were crossing the river Sidon, the Lamanites and the Amlicites, being as numerous almost, as it were, as the sands of the sea, came upon them to destroy them. This is the problem with causes that depend so much on one man - you kill the man and the cause often dies. Alma 2:31 Now when Alma had said these words he contended again with Amlici; and he was strengthened, insomuch that he slew Amlici with the sword. On other occasions, a surrender has been arranged, followed by a peaceful disarmament of the enemy, but it looks like that didn't happen in this case. Alma 2:36 And they fled before the Nephites towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land; and the Nephites did pursue them with their might, and did slay them.

54.000 years? I see a need for improvement in Sauron's ring-forging techniques. On the other hand Ctulhuhu was far too hasty when deciding where to put madness.

Welcome to the forum @Penny Lane, may your contributions be many and thought provoking.

Sounds like a reoccurring problem, from Adam and Cain until today. This highlights the necessity of everybody gaining their own testimony rather than relying on the faith and practices of others. It would be concerning if the development of their faith was dependent on their memory of a speech given when they were children. But inactivity and falling away continues to be a problem today, even with the far greater resources that the church today has. It makes me ponder the extant to which technology aids church activity and the extent to which its absence hasten inactivity. Mosiah 26:1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being Where did this unbelief come from and how did it arise? I think that to some extent, neither belief nor disbelief are natural conditions. I think they are created; although, on the other hand, it is true that all are born with the light of Christ. I wander do what extent this disbelief was created by poor parenting, and how much of it can be attributed to the influence of Satan continually working on each of us to overcome our faith. Mosiah 26:2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ. I wander if the size of their church units was a contributing factor. With 7 churches covering the whole population maybe there just weren't enough priests and teachers to properly cover the spiritual needs of the people. Mosiah 26:4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. In Mosiah 5:2 it seems to strongly indicate that the conversion level after King Benjamin's address was universal. It talks of all the people accepting what the King had taught and Mosiah's reign commenced immediately after the end of his father's speech. Mosiah 26:5 And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; Not a voluntary process? It sort of sounds a bit like an arrest where wrong doers are brought before a judge to be tried. Mosiah 26:7 And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, Today when we see the words priests and teachers in close proximity we tend to think of Aaronic Priesthood holders, but I suspect that in this case the teachers are those who had the responsibility of teaching in the various churches. But the fact that the teachers were the ones who brought the sinners to the Priests makes it sound as if the teachers did more than just teach. Mosiah 26:7 And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; t seems as if, at this point, like Moses, it was Alma doing all the judging. Mosiah 26:7 And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; and the priests brought them before Alma, who was the high priest. So despite having been the leader of the church for some time, Alma still did not know how to deal with sinful members. Either the need hadn't arisen or it had arisen but not been responded to. Mosiah 26:9 And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; here is the answer - the need had not arisen before. This, then, is a testimony of, or tribute to, Alma's effective as a church leader. Mosiah 26:10 Now there had not any such thing happened before in the church; crimes or sins? I think sins. All criminal actions would be sinful but not all sinful actions would be criminal. Mosiah 26:11 that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes. In latter-day language, I guess this is an example of what we now call having your calling and election made sure. I'm not going to do it now but it may be interesting to do a comparison between the revelation that Alma received on this question and the revelation that Joseph Smith received in response to the same question. Mosiah 26:20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep. Its a rather unflattering comparison. Mosiah 26:20 and shalt gather together my sheep.

I've often thought that transitions from a single source of great power to distributed sources of lesser power is an indication of the social/spiritual maturity of a people. When the Saints first arrived in Salt Lake they were led mostly by a single source of power - Brigham Young - but that situation evolved into situation where sources of power became more diverse. For the Israelites, the transition from judges to kings, to me, is a backwards step.

I took this pic a few weeks ago. This is unusual because it was mid morning, and this possom was only a meter or so away from a very busy foothpath, just watching the people go by. Its not showing up all that clearly in the pic, but another unusual thing is that this possom's coat was sandy in colour. Usually possoms here are grey and white. Possoms here are very cute but they do have an annoying habit of taking up residence in the ceiling cavity of people''s houses and it can get pretty noisy when you have one or two possums running around in your room.

I wonder what this means. Notwithstanding their common heritage from Israel the Mulekites and Nephites by this time had become two completely different groups of people, with different languages and with one group having no historical records. When they became one people, I'm guessing that it means that the Mulekites adopted the ways and languages of the Nephites, even though it seems as if it was the Nephites who transferred in to the territory of the Mulekites, and that it was the Mulekites who were numerically superior. Earlier in the book of Mormon we read that the term Nephites was used to refer to the different groups that believed in the gospel, and based on who they had descended from. This continuation of distinctions based on descendants may be evidence that some sort of tribalism still had some sort of social impact. So when you have a society that might still be divided into numerous tribal groupings and then you find and join a completely new and foreign group, what impact would that have on both groups? How smooth and successful and complete was the merging process between the various groups? Mosiah 25 The descendants of Mulek at Zarahemla become Nephites I'm guessing that a big part of the reason for this is the frequency and severity of the wars that the Nephites were involved in over a period of many hundreds of years. See Omni 1: 5- 6 It's interesting that a people who had the benefit of prophets, records, temples, righteous kings and scriptures had not fared as well as a people who do not appear to have had these advantages. Mosiah 25:2 Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, I wander if this was a delegation of authority or if it was a transfer of authority. Once having handed authority to Alma, did Mosiah step back from his religious responsibilities? Mosiah 25 Mosiah authorizes Alma to organize the Church of God. just like his father did Mosiah 25:1 1 And now king Mosiah caused that all the people should be gathered together. This seems to be an indication that the merger of the two groups of people still had some way to go. By this point, they had been together from the time that Mosiah's grandfather had discovered them, as recorded in Omni, and through all of King Benjamin's reign, and now into the reign of Mosiah the second, and still they were gathered in two large groups, maintaining their distinction. Mosiah 25:4 4 And now all the people of Nephi were assembled together, and also all the people of Zarahemla, and they were gathered together in two bodies. wonder if the record that King Mosiah read was the same record that I have just read in the previous chapters, or have I just read the shortened, edited version? Mosiah 25:5 And it came to pass that Mosiah did read, and caused to be read, the records of Zeniff to his people; This record is suggesting that Alma was part of the group that first left Zarahemla and then later returned. This would mean that Alma must have been quite young when they left Zarahemla. He must have been quite old when they returned. I think it was about 50 years from the start of the trip with Zeniff to the return to Zarahemla so I guess if Alma had been 20 when they left, its possible that he could still be alive at the time they returned. and he also read the account of Alma and his brethren, and all their afflictions, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time they returned again. This is clearly a different set of records from the plates of Nephi. So in our version of the record - the Book of Mormon - we get the edited version of the records of Zeniff and of Alma, as recorded in the plates of Nephi. Mosiah 25:7 7 And now, when Mosiah had made an end of reading the records, I suspect that the level of familiarity between those hearing this record, and those whose history it is was quite tenuous and distant but still they had great compassion for these people who they hardly knew. Mosiah 25:9 And again, when they thought of their brethren who had been slain by the Lamanites they were filled with sorrow, and even shed many tears of sorrow. This concern for their enemies comes up quite a few times in the Book of Mormon. I can't remember any occasions in the Book of Mormon when the Nephites express any hatred towards their enemies or strong ill-will. Mosiah 25:11 And again, when they thought upon the Lamanites, who were their brethren, of their sinful and polluted state, they were filled with pain and anguish for the welfare of their souls. Another example of compassion and concern for a people they hardly knew and who were usually their enemies trying to kill them. Mosiah 25:11 And again, when they thought upon the Lamanites, who were their brethren, of their sinful and polluted state, they were filled with pain and anguish for the welfare of their souls. Which kingdom are they talking about here? I thought the Nephites were in the territory that had previously been the Mulekites. This statement is a bit ambiguous and possibly misleading. We are in a situation where two kingdoms had been merged - the kingdom of the Mulekites and the kingdom of the Nephites. Obviously, before the discovery of the Mulekites by King Mosiah 1, the kingdom of the Mulekites had been ruled only by the Mulekites and never by a descendant of Nephi. Mosiah 2 was the first Nephite king to rule this newly created combined kingdom. Was it a takeover or a merger? Mosiah 25:13 And now all the people of Zarahemla were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi. Alma had previously appointed priests to teach the people. Was he the only person who could have taught the different groups of people? Mosiah 25:15 nd Alma did speak unto them, when they were assembled together in large bodies, and he went from one body to another, preaching unto the people repentance and faith on the Lord. The effect of powerful preaching. We see this happen again with King Lamoni and his father and their people - convert the king and the people follow. That seemed to be the case with American Indians in the early days of the church and I also recall a general conference talk by a general authority, maybe by President Eyring or Elder Rasband about an African king promising to bring all his people if he got baptised. Mosiah 25:17 And it came to pass that after Alma had taught the people many things, and had made an end of speaking to them, that king Limhi was desirous that he might be baptized; and all his people were desirous that they might be baptized also. There's quite a few of these mass conversion events recorded in the Book of Mormon. The spiritual decisions and welfare of these people seemed to be dangerously dependent on the actions and decisions of their rulers. Mosiah 25:18 18 Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; I can understand that it would be the kings decision to allow the establishment of churches throughout the land, but I wouldn't think his consent or involvement would be required for the calling of priests. I thought that would be a decision that was very much within the domain of the head of the church. This church may have been different from the church of the New Testament. These Book of Mormon churches had priests and teachers. The New Testament church had prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Mosiah 25:19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church. This sounds similar to the practice that has began to emerge in the church in the last few years. In the last 5 years or so it has become the common practice for the topics of sacrament talks, Relief Society lessons and Priesthood lessons to all be based on addresses given at General Conference, so the talks and lessons become mechanisms for repeating and emphasising what church leaders have said. It also sounds very similar to 3rd Nephi 19:7-8 7 And the disciples did pray unto the Father also in the name of Jesus. And it came to pass that they arose and ministered unto the people. 8 And when they had ministered those same words which Jesus had spoken—nothing varying from the words which Jesus had spoken Mosiah 25:21 Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma This is very different from today. Today, all manner of topics are covered in General Conferences. Certainly faith and repentance are the two most important topics, and are frequently covered, but they are far from the only two topics. I note that since the time of PResident Nelson there have been far more talks about repentance than has previously been the case. Mosiah 25:22 for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God. Were there any Nephites who had not relocated to Zarahemla and if so, I wonder what happened to them and their records. I wonder if this gives us a possible hint about the size of the population? Perhaps each church had a very large number of members? Or maybe there were many people who did not belong to the church? Or maybe there weren't all that many people and 7 churchs was enough? Mosiah 25:23 And now there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla. The taking, or rejecting of a name seems to have been a powerfully symbolic act of identification for these people. See, for example, verse 12 of this chapter. Mosiah 25:23 And now there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that whosoever were desirous to take upon them the name of Christ, or There are benefits from clarity and precision. This is a surprisingly vague statement given how careful these people were about names. Mosiah 25:23 And now there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that whosoever were desirous to take upon them the name of Christ, or of God, So what was the name of their church? They were called the people of God, and they took upon themselves the name of Christ, or of God. We read in 3rd Nephi and Doctrine and Covenants 115 that Christ was quite specific in how His church should be named, and that name was not the Church of God 7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. 8 And how be it amy bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Mosiah 25:23 they did join the churches of God;

Just a thought 4 O Lord, do not suffer that this people shall be destroyed by the sword; but O Lord, rather alet there be a bfamine in the land, to stir them up in remembrance of the Lord their God, and perhaps they will repent and turn unto thee. This verse refers to a time when large numbers of Nephites were being killed in a war. Through the intervention of Nephi, the deaths from war came to an end, but deaths from famine commenced. It reminds me of 1918 when the deaths from war stopped but deaths from the Spanish flu commenced.

Matthew 18 21 ¶ Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Doctrine and Covenants 98 44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee. Does Matthew 8:21-22 teach that we should be willing to forgive people many, many times and does Doctrine and Covenants 98:44 teach that in some circumstances, or for some actions, we should limit our forgiveness to four occasions? Do these verses teach different things about forgiveness?

I was just about to go to bed when I read this, but after reading it, of course, I had to stay up a little longer to glance through Deuteronomy 17

Surely this small righteous, church-growing group of people were far more righteous than the Lamanites. I would have thought that it was the Lamanites who needed chastening far more than this group. The Lord loves those whom He chastens. Were the Lamanites being chastened in any way? Mosiah 23 The Lord chastens His people, and the Lamanites conquer the land of Helam Thu, Oct 19, 2023 And some time later, his son stepped down from being chief judge so that he would have more time to devote to the ministry. Alma refuses to be king This reminds me of when the brother of Jared and all of his sons and most of Jared's sons turned down the invitation to be king. This seems to run so counter to what seemed to be a constant, and very strong interest of the people - to have someone rule over them. So similar to the desires of the ancient Israelites. Did they do this in the belief that having a king make their decisions would thereby make them less accountable for their actions? Did they want a mediator between them and God? Who knows? Mosiah 23:7 Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: This becomes more interesting when contrasted with what happened with the israelites. They wanted a king and God told His prophet to tell them that that was a bad idea. Nevertheless, the people persisted in their desire for a king so God found the most suitable candidate and arranged for him to become King. On this occasions here in Mosiah 23, the word of the prophet prevails and the people seemingly give up on their desire to have a king. With the Israelites, God showed a willingness to get involved in facilitating what He had previously advised was a bad idea. Perhaps this could be an example of how we should deal with ungodly things - not walk away from them but try to make the best of a bad situation. 7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king. This reminds me of the Puritans fleeing England, seeking to escape from a king who was persecuting them on religious grounds. When they arrived in their new land, based on their experience in their previous land, they were firmly against the idea of having a king. Mosiah 23:9 9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, Does repentance always have to be painful to be effective, and if so, why? I'm reminded of that fact that we are sometimes invited/encouraged/exhorted to engage in daily repentance and that to do so promotes growth. So growth through pain. Is there no other way? Mosiah 23:9 which caused me sore repentance; This reminds me of Alma 36: 16 - 19. His son, who possibly engaged in far more serious rebelliong against God, only had three days of suffering, although it does seem to have been quite intense. Mosiah 23:10 10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, The two Almas were similar in so many important ways - both started their religious vocation in positions opposed to the true church, both experienced great tribulation as a result, both became powerful church leaders, both had opportunities for powerful political positions which they walked away from and both were great missionaries, playing important roles in building and leading the church. Mosiah 23:10 10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth.

One of the scariest seen in horror movies

This hymn puzzled me as a child. Instead of hearing 'Tis better far for us to strive, I heard tea's better far for us to strive, and that seemed to be inconsistent with my understanding of the Word of Wisdom