askandanswer

Evidently Christ had long hair and a beard. Perhaps He also had tattoos on His hands? (Old Testament | Isaiah 49:16) 16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands;

Last weekend our stake held its second annual mini-mission. This event is for Priests and Laurels. it involves participants arriving at the MTC (local stake centre) at about 6;00 on Friday night and participating in a dinner followed by two hours of mission preparation classes. After MTC they were each paired off with a full time missionary (threesomes in some cases, but mostly in pairs) and then went to the missionary apartment for the night. For the next 48 hours they lived and worked exactly as the full time missionaries, following the missionary daily schedule and all mission rules. On Sunday they returned to the stake centre for dinner and a fireside. During the fireside, attended by parents, they shared their experiences. It was very clear that for most participants, it was a powerful spiritual experience, and for many, it greatly strengthened their desire to serve a mission. It was equally successful last year. I thoroughly recommend annual mini missions as one of the tools that should be included in the missionary preparation tool kit.

This might sound like a slightly Machiavellian approach, so I don’t feel wholly comfortable with it, but I offer it here in the hope that it might be helpful. I suggest you take the offensive – start asking things of her instead of her always asking stuff from you. Specifically, I suggest that you invite her to church. I suspect she will refuse. This refusal then becomes the basis for the termination of the “friendship.” You could explain to her how important church is to you and how your character/values/identity have all been significantly influenced by your beliefs and church membership and that because your church membership means so much to you, and is such an important part of your life, you would like her to have the opportunity to experience the blessings of church membership. If she is not interested in a) learning more about what has made you the person that you are, a person who she claims to like and be friends with, and b) exposing herself to an opportunity that could help to strengthen her moral values and character, then I think you can use her refusal as a legitimate reason to terminate the relationship. If she’s not interested in learning more about why you are who you are, then her interest in you seems to be somewhat shallow, and her refusal to come to church should be a clear demonstration of how shallow her interest is, both to you, and to herself. Of course, if she does come to church, and comes on a regular basis, that provides a great opportunity for you and her to start helping her shift her values, priorities and behaviours more towards those that you would feel more comfortable with.

(New Testament | John 17:5) 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:1) 1 AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:2) 2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. 1. John 17:5 seems to record Christ asking His Father to give Him glory, presumably for the great work He has done and is about to do. Moses 4:1 seems to record Lucifer asking his Father to give him glory for the work he would like to do. What do you see as some of the differences and similarities between these two situations? Moses 4:2 seems to record that Christ offered all the glory to the Father, whereas John 17:5 seems to record that Christ asked for some of the glory. Does the apparent difference between these two verses suggest that Jesus might have changed His mind about whether He should have any of the glory?

Sometimes when I am in circumstances when I want to write something down but am unable to do so, I use the voice recorder function on my phone and then transcribe it later. I also find that when I record, rather than write, I capture much more information. The recording also captures the tone of my voice at the time, which can sometimes convey more feeling than written words on a paper. Then when the circumstances are more favourable, I can transcribe the recording into my journal.

I believe that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve hold weekly meetings in an upper room in the Salt Lake temple. Possibly, those who attend take notes in these meetings. Maybe even written notes. But that's a different kind of circumstance to what you are inquiring about and maybe it only happens in the Salt Lake temple. However, it would be a little surprising if the Temple Presidency of every temple in the world does not take written notes when meeting with his counsellors in his Temple President's office. And when we read our scriptures, as we are often encouraged to do, and are allowed to do in the Temple, are we not also encouraged to mark and make notes in our scriptures?

I think there is at least a grain of truth, and much for you to consider, in this short anecdote given by Elder Hales in his General Conference address last April on the Holy Ghost As we receive the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for ourselves, it is wise to remember that we cannot receive revelation for others. I know of a young man who told a young woman, “I’ve had a dream that you are to be my wife.” The young woman pondered that statement and then responded, “When I have the same dream, I’ll come and talk to you.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

I think there is at least a grain of truth, and much for you to consider, in this short anecdote given by Elder Hales in his General Conference address last April on the Holy Ghost As we receive the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for ourselves, it is wise to remember that we cannot receive revelation for others. I know of a young man who told a young woman, “I’ve had a dream that you are to be my wife.” The young woman pondered that statement and then responded, “When I have the same dream, I’ll come and talk to you.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

The Lord through His prophets has commanded us to hasten the work. I would buy the car as fast as I could. However, if I was to disregard this counsel to hasten the work, and rely entirely on my own judgement, I would attempt to base my decision on the principle of seeking to do what is the greatest good for the greatest number. And then it becomes a bit tricky trying to work out whether the best thing to do is to stop wicked people from engaging in further wickedness, or whether there is still some hope of bringing some to repentance and whether the good that would be achieved by bringing some few to repentance is greater or lesser than the good that would be achieved by denying the wicked the opportunity to continue engaging in wickedness.

Is Exodus 7 verse 22 where Pharaoh's magicians duplicate the miracles that Moses did an exception to the principle that John stated in John 3 verse 27 where he says a man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven? I understand John 3 verse 27 to mean that a man can do nothing, unless he receives from heaven the power to do something. Surely the power of Pharoah’s servants to perform this duplicate miracle was received from somewhere - it is not a power inherently in man. If John’s statement holds true in all circumstances then it raises the question of from whence came the power of Pharoah’s magicians? If the answer is that this power came from Satan, then it would suggest that there are some limits to John’s statement. If the answer is that this power came from God, then this would be a contrary example to the argument that Jesus used when He was accused by the pharisees in Matthew 12: 24 - 26 of casting out devils because he was the prince of devils. .

Did Jesus have a home? Matthew 8:20 (foxes have holes, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head) suggests that He did not, but the footnote to Mark 2:1 suggests that He did have a home, in Capernaum, and John 1:38-39 indicates that Christ invited two of John’s disciples to His home. My guess is that in His early ministry, Christ lived at home, but once He began His ministry, as with some of the early missionaries of the church who served for three years at a stretch, away from home, He had “not where to lay his head.” There’s quite a difference between being homeless, which is sometimes how I’ve heard Matthew 8:20 interpreted, and leaving, or giving up one’s home to engage in missionary work.

In Matthew 17: 14 - 21 there is an account of the disciples being unable to heal a lunatick 14 ¶ And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. In apparent response to the disciples’ failure to cure the child, in verse 17, Christ appears to bemoan their lack of faith when He states,”O faithless and perverse generation.” In Matthew 13: 58 we read that Christ was unable to perform many mighty miracles in His own country because of the lack of faith of the people. Matthew 12:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. In summary, we are told that the disciples were unable to cure the child because of their lack of faith (verse 20) while the inability of Christ to do many mighty works in His own country is attributed to the lack of faith of the people. Latter Day gospel teachings suggest that the effectiveness of blessings is primarily dependent upon the faith of the recipient. If this is true it would explain why Christ was not able to do miracles in His own country. Also if this is true, then Christ’s comment about the faithless and perverse generation, if directed towards the disciples who failed to cure the child, might appear to seem a little unfair as it would not be their lack of faith that was the cause of the failure, but the lack of faith of the recipient, or the recipient’s father who requested their help. I can't see Christ doing something that was unfair, so perhaps He was not addressing the disciples when He said that. To whom was Christ addressing his remarks about a lack of faith in Matthew 17:17 - the father who showed enough faith to seek the help of the disciples, the disciples who failed to cure the child, or the generation as a whole? Christ's comment, in verse 20 that they - the disciples - were unable to do it because of their unbelief suggests that He was addressing His remarks about a faithless and perverse generation were directed towards the disciples. If it was to the generation as a whole, this would seem to be inconsistent with the later success the apostles and seventies had in spreading the gospel. If it was to the disciples, then do we need to refine or modify our understanding that the effect of a blessing is primarily determined by the faith of the recipient? And who needed to do the fasting and prayer referred to in verse 21 - the father of the child or the disciples?

The nearest temple to me has an annexe. The annexe includes toilets and showers, a small kitchen, a child minding room, a large cupboard for storing luggage, and a lounge-room type area. It comes under the same roof as the temple and could therefore be considered as part of the temple. Anyone can access the annexe, however, to get to the rest of the temple from the annexe, you need to show your temple recommend at the counter. I guess that in some respects, the annexe could be considered a half way mark between the temple and the outside world. All manner of activities go on in the annexe, including writing, so I guess to that extent, writing in that part of the temple would be totally unproblematic. I'm guessing that your temple does not have an annexe, but the fact that writing is perfectly permissible in temples that do have an annexe seems to suggest that in some circumstances, writing in one part of the temple is quite all right.

Does this mean that going to church delays entry to the afterlife by five months?

There's a very popular kind of beer in Australia called Victoria bitter, but I don't think it has anything to do with this expression.

I've sometimes thought that the exercise of extracting a coin from the mouth of a fish has some similarities to priestcraft - the use of divine Priesthood power for personal gain. Perhaps it could be argued that Jesus did not personally gain anything himself from this process as He gave the coin to the tax collector, to which I would reply that meeting a financial and legal obligation to which one is subject in this context is pretty much the same thing as personal gain. Or looked at in another way, it might appear that Christ used His Priesthood power to provide financial support to a dictatorial, murderous, corrupt, merciless, cruel government. This would be a rather unusual way of characterising this particular event but its an interpretation that seems to fit the basic facts of the matter. If this is indeed what Christ did, it must have been the right thing to do otherwise He would not have done it.

To me, the use of the word “we” suggests that Paul was talking to, and about, in the first instance, the congregation in front of him at the time. The use of the word “all” suggests to me that he is talking about everybody and not just those who are around during the millennium. And I understood the use of the term “twinkling of an eye” to refer to a time frame, ie, that the resurrection will happen very quickly, even in the twinkling of an eye.

New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 53) 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:94 - 99) And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it. 95 And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled; 96 And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him. 97 And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven— 98 They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God. 99 And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh. Paul seems to be saying two things here. One, that we shall all be resurrected at the same time, and two, that the resurrection will occur at the sounding of the last trump. Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants seems to be saying that the resurrection will be a staged process occurring in several stages, and that it is only after the third trump that the resurrection will be completed – “And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation. (Doctrine and Covenants “| Section 88:100) Furthermore, this third trump is definitely not the last trump as verses 102 – 110 state that there will be at least another 11 trumps after this third trump. What do you think is the best way to reconcile these apparent differences between 1 Corinthians and Section 88 on the nature and order of the resurrection?

I've never felt the need or interest to look at other LDS related forums. lds.net easily meets all my needs and interests.

Maybe God IS smiting with you this election

And this is exactly what King Mosiah reminded of us of in Mosiah 4:16-18 16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just— 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

Here are some possible reasons why people may have asked if she smoked: 1. They are curious 2. They are conducting their own informal research or trying to increase their own understanding about connections between lung cancer and smoking 3. They're really bad at small talk and don't know what else to say 4. They are gathering anecdotes to use in their next arguement with a loved one who refuses to accept any link between smoking and cancer 5. Maybe, just maybe, they are trying to work out how much sympathy the dying smoker deservies. To assume the fifth answer, ahead of the equally plausible other four answers, sounds exactly the kind of judgement that this person is railing against.

Many years ago, in another stake and state, I am aware of an ex-communicated bishop who, about 30 years later, was called to be assistant high priest group leader. I believe that in between when he was excommunicated and when he became Assistant HPGL he also served as a home teacher and had various assignments over several years in the family history centre. I think he may have had more than this but I don't know for sure.

35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb. What percentage of the population of the great and spacious building do you think the House of Israel make up? The way this verse is worded makes it hard for me to work out whether few, many or all of the inhabitants of that building are of the House of Israel. Like many of you here, I’ve read this verse many times, but this is the first time I’ve realised that it was the House of Israel who were fighting against God’s apostles. Normally, the House guys are the good guys.

Thanks Mirkwood