askandanswer

So how did the homecoming go?

I guess its too early to say "and they all lived happily ever after" but it seems as if that possibility is now at least in sight?

palerider on 6 Mar Lol!!! I will have to watch this go down.... The protesters are probably planning on General Conference being held in early April, but I know that Pam is working on having it held in May, so despite palerider's lack of faith I'm sure the protest will fail, thanks to Pam. :)

The way I’m reading this, it seems that in order to make this scripture fit with historical facts, that we need to make a few important assumptions: one, that it refers to a very specific, but unspecified place – maybe the continental United States, maybe the land where Jacob was when he made this prophesy, maybe the American continent as a whole – second, that it refers to a very specific, but unspecified time – maybe after 1492, maybe after 1776, maybe after the adoption of the Constitution, maybe after Washington was destroyed by the British, maybe after the signing of the Monroe Doctrine, maybe after the last Queen of Hawaii resigned in about 1893, and third, that it is only referring to kings who emerge from the existing population of the US, rather than any of the kings that have reigned over various parts of the Americas at various times. It may well be that it is right and proper to make assumptions when trying to understand prophecy although there does seem to be some risks associated with that approach. If these are the assumptions that we have to make in order to properly understand what 2 Nephi 10: 11-12 means, do we then have to consider that there might be other assumptions underlying other prophecies that need to be identified before we can start to properly understand what these other prophecies mean? The statement that “there shall be no kings upon the land” seems to ignore the fact that both before and after 1776 there have been many kings on various parts of the land.

Pam, I feel like this is a good time to have a discussion about the joy of giving. :)

I started to read the press release but only got as far as the second paragraph and then gave up. Its outside my area of interest or concern. I thought for a moment or two that perhaps I should read all of it, out of a sense of duty to keep myself informed about things that matter to me, but no, I really don't need this stuff and it has no impact or relevance for me.

Have you ever recorded his snoring then playing it back to him? How long do you think it would take before he went to see a specialist if you woke him up every time his snoring woke you up?

Duffman, please be careful when pursuing this line of thinking. If applied to other principles, it can lead to actions and attitudes that can lead us to places we would rather not be. I'm not going to try and guess what God may think of you drinking tea or coffee, but I do believe that your bishop, who was called by the Lord to guide and preside over your ward, cares.

My suggestion as to the most helpful order of events would be: 1. First,a discussion on how questions of this type should be addressed, eg, by decree of the university president or the body that controls the university? by vote of the students? by the whim of a major financial supporter? Presumably the university already has a set of rules or procedures for how important decisions should be made. 2. Using the agreed set of procedures, there should then be a broad discussion about where flags at Irvine University should/could be and where they should/could not be. 3. Consistent with the principles of flag location identified through the above discussion, there should then be a specific discussion about whether or not there should be a flag in the campus lobby. This discussion should take into account all the possible ways in which that space should be used. My two cents worth is that it should be used in a way that best promotes the values and objectives of the university. If the decision is made along these kind of lines, and if the campus lobby is an area that is recognised as being legitimately under the control of the student leadership lobby panel then I think that whatever decision they make should stand, regardless of whether the decision is for or against the flag being returned to the lobby. It would be an ironic situation if a majority of students voted for the removal of a flag, which in part represents a commitment to democratic values and that decision was then upheld on the grounds that it was a majority who voted for it.

I've always thought that Nephi was somewhere around Central America when he made this prophecy, so when he talks about "this land" I thought that's the area he would have been referring to. The land that now comprises America probably came under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king after it was discovered by Columbus, and then later the English king up until the time of the American revolution and those parts of North America that now make up Canada still came under the jurisdiction of the King or Queen of England until relatively recently. Even after the American revolution and prior to the Louisiana purchase, much of the territory would have come under French jurisdiction and what is now Texas and California would have been under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king up until the Mexican war of Independence. So much of what is now the United States, which may or may not have been the area that Nephi was referring to, has at various times, been under the jurisdiction of a king. And the capture and burning of Washington by the British in 1814 does not fit well with the idea that America was fortified against all other nations. So I'm still puzzled.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 10:11) 11 And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. 12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations. I’m having trouble understanding these two verses. I think that French, English, and Spanish kings have reigned over parts of the land that Nephi is referring to here, and maybe even Portuguese kings, for more than two centuries in some places. And every time there has been a war between two nations on the North and South American continents, eg, Mexico v US, or the 1812 American/Canadian war, one nation has won, and another has lost, thereby suggesting that the nation which lost was unfortified against the attacking nation. So what does Nephi mean when he says there will be no kings upon the land, and that it will be fortified against other nations?

Could somebody please clarify for me please, I've never quite understood the difference between making a judgement and forming an opinion. The distinction may be important because making a judgement can be a sin, but forming an opinion is almost a daily necessity.

Pay me and I'll tell you

Hi Pam, sorrry, I won't be able to make April, but don't worry, there's no need to cancel the event, because I might be able to make it for May. Perhaps you could use your mod. powers to shift General Conference back by a month?

Many important elements of the gospel were known, taught and practised by many different organisations, mostly Protestant churches, usually in an incomplete and corrupted form, prior to the full restoration of the Gospel beginning in 1820. These practices and teachings had been around in one form or another since at least the time of Christ. I don't see why its hard to believe that the practices of Masons could fall into this same category. The idea that they date back to the building of Solomon's temple seems to be a bit hard to swallow, but I can see that they could date back to the building of the great Cathedrals in Europe during the renaissance. Perhaps they date back to the same period, and have the same roots, as that period of religious upheaval and the moving of the Spirit on certain key individuals when the bible first started to be made available to the ordinary people.

lol, you're a much better person than me - I'm here mostly for selfish reasons; for what I can learn. However, I will contribute to a post where it looks like the poster is needing assistance and I have something that I think might be helpful

Me too! Watching and learning the thought patterns and how to put a good argument together and how to respond in the same way are some of the things I hope to learn from here.

Question Answer

I thought there was a plan to keep you hidden under the table?

This is probably stretching an analogy past breaking point but its an amusing thought to play with. I just did a quick search on the word savour in the scriptures. There are quite a few that make references to burnt offerings creating a sweet savour for the Lord. There are some for whom the smell of barbecue lamb chops might be a sweet savour, but I don't think this is what the Lord is referring to here. I think He's talking more about the sweetness of the people's obedience and sacrifice. I see some analogies here with the burnt toast. Both the Lord's comment on the smell of the burnt offerings and the husband's comment on the toast are probably not indicative of how they feel about the actual offering that is being presented to them, but is more a response to the act of offering.

How often has a sincerely held belief, or strong opinion that you held been changed as a result of discussions on this site? What was belief or opinion and what was the posting that changed it? Do some posters have a greater impact on our understandings and beliefs than other posters? I'm just curious. To answer part of my own question, I can't say that I've had a sincerely held belief changed yet as a result of my participation on this site, but then I'm only a relatively new user. I think for me the main benefit that I have gained from using this site is an increasing awareness of the need to be very specific in how to word a post, the inadequacy of language, and the examples shown of the sometimes impressive depth of knowledge and ability to structure an argument that some of the users of this site display. I'm continuing to watch the lessons that occasionally take place on how to disagree without being disagreeable as how to deal with strongly opposing views is something that I think I will be able to learn from this site.

Sorry, you're right, I should have done this in my first post. Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve) The Lord, of necessity, has kept authorized servants on the earth bearing the priesthood from the days of Adam to the present time; in fact, there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.) Even in the days of apostasy, and apostasy has occurred several times, the Lord never surrendered this earth and permitted Satan to have complete control. Even when the great apostasy occurred following the death of the Savior's apostles, our Father in heaven held control and had duly authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers. These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, but they did check the advances of evil as far as the Lord deemed it necessary. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:45) And The apostasy refers to the absence of the kingdom (i.e, Church) of Jesus Christ on the earth. This is not to say that there may not be some who hold the priesthood, but they have no authority or authorization to establish the Church or perform its ordinances. Presidents J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee went so far as to teach that the presence of such priesthood holders during periods of apostasy were, in their opinion, a necessity: President [J. Reuben] Clark said something that startled some folks years ago. He said, "It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes" (in Conference Report, October 1953, p. 39). When that conference session was over there were many who said, "My goodness, doesn't President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?" I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, "I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation that God has abandoned the earth to Satan. There has always been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check." And then I thought of Enoch's city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have sojourned with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah—and perhaps Moses; for all we know they were translated beings, as was John the Revelator. I have thought of the Three Nephites. Why were they translated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was suggested when I heard President Smith make the above statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the kingdom of God has always been present, because these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.[1] ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 486 By way of interest,while searching for other sources to support the idea that the Priesthood has always been on the earth I came across this from the ask gramps site. While it is certainly note definitive, and seems to be unsourced, I found it interesting. http://askgramps.org/3967/if-there-are-still-3-nephites-walking-earth-today-this

This quote is interesting and informative but for me it raises many questions which I will respond to when I have a bit more time. All I can say at this moment is that the above conclusion might not be totally reliable as, if it is the case that the Priesthood has always existed on the earth, as taught by President Joseph Fielding Smith and others, then the restoration of the Priesthood in 1829 does not constitute proof of its total absence so a restoration of the church, or of the gospel, would not constitute proof of their absence.

Yes, I would agree that the Savior's church was removed from the earth. Did the gospel go with it, which would seem to constitute a breaking of the promise, or decree, made in Moses 5:59, or did it stay, even in the absence of the church?

I've thought carefully about whether I should make this comment as I don't want to get involved in any kind of arguement about how infertile couples should feel and what they should do, and how fertile couples should respond or not to the feelings of infertile couples. However, after thinking about it carefully, the above part of Char's comment, and I realise its only a part, continues to bother me. I am absolutely opposed to any suggestion that mother's should be given any less honour, respect and recognition than is currently the case. When I see how much work and time and effort and caring my wife gives to our children, I am filled with gratitude and delight that she is so giving and caring and it is obvious to all that as a mother, she is deserving of great respect. My problem with celebrating Mother's Day at church is that it only happens once a year. I cannot imagine a mother, or anyone with intimate knowledge and experience of parenting, supporting the idea that mothers are deserving of any less recognition than they currently receive, or should receive. It doesn't make sense to me that the many mothers in a ward, who spend almost every hour of their waking day, every day of the year, thinking about the well-being of their family and children, should receive less respect than they deserve in order to assuage the feelings of the 8% who have problems with fertility.