askandanswer

Many thanks @scottyg, this was very interesting.

We do sometimes hear about what the Prophet is praying about or what he would like us to pray about, but we almost never hear or see those prayers.

Thanks for this. Its an interesting 50 year old example of how a Prophet's prayer can positively impact the lives of a family, and of what a Prophet prays for.

I've watched many General Conferences. I've often heard Prophets talk about their prayers for the church but I've never heard or seen a Prophet pray. Has anyone else?

I suspect, with no doctrine or teaching that I know of to support my suspicion, that the Lord will not impose a sealing on anyone who does not want it, even if that means denying a sealing to someone who does want it. I think that in the end, what will matter most, and what you will receive, is what you want and have lived worthy to receive. I think that if you and your second wife wish to be sealed, and have lived worthy of that blessing, it will not be denied you in the next life if someone does the proxy work for you after you have left this life. Just my own thoughts.

Others will hopefully explain this concept better than myself. I've sometimes heard it taught that all religions contain some true, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints embraces all truth, so there is going to be some degree of resonance between sources which have all, and some, of the truth.

I've repented and removed it. I'm feeling far less dizzy now than I was a moment ago.

An ignorant American? Isn't that a bit of tautology? We have a situation in the state of New South Wales a little bit similar to what you described happening at the moment. In that state, there is a piece of legislation that was passed by both houses of parliament 13 years ago but which has not been signed by the State Governor, who is the monarch's state representative. However, in that case, the Governor's "decision" not to sign is at the direction of the government - the legislation was passed by a previous government and before the governor could sign it, an election was held, and the Opposition gained power, they disagreed with the legislation so they directed the Governor not to sign the legislation. This year, after 13 years in opposition, the party that originally passed that legislation regained power, and I believe they are now updating the legislation before presenting it back to the governor for signature. Its something to do with creating an exception for Aboriginal people from the laws that limit how much abalone can be harvested from the ocean each year. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-19/cultural-fishing-hearing-nsw-parliament-house-sydney/101346918 It has never been tested, but the Prime Minister can recommend directly to the monarch that a Governor-General be removed from office. Its highly likely that the monarch would act on the Prime Minister's request. In 1975 both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General could have arranged for the removal of each other but the Governor-General was quicker to act so he won that particular race. Interestingly, John Kerr, the Governor-General in 1975 had been appointed to that office by the Prime Minister who he later sacked. After that, he was hated and vilified by Labor supporters until the day he died. One of the tv networks here made a reasonably accurate mini-series about it about a decade later called The Dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dismissal_(miniseries)#:~:text=The Dismissal is an Australian,the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.

Yes, you're right, on paper, the Governor-General holds a lot of power, in practice, virtually none. The last time I can recall a Governor-General actually exercising his power on his own initiative was in 1975 when the Governon-General sacked the Prime Minister, without any prior approval or disapproval from the monarch. I believe that Governon-General had kept the monarch advised of what was happening in Australia at that time, and had asked for advice, but the monarch persistently declined to give any clear advice on how the Governon-General should handle the crisis that was unfolding. The sacking of the Prime Minister by the Governor-General was the closest Australia has come to a constitutional crisis. Albanese is doing a good job, his approval ratings continue to be close to what they were at the time he was elected more than a year ago.

Australia's Head of State is not our Prime Minister, it is the Governor-General, who, in consititutional terms, is the King's representative. He is the one who has to sign a bill passed by both houses of Parliament before it becomes law. Around the turn of the century, Peter Hollingsworth, who was the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane at the time, our 3rd largest city, was appointed to be Governor General. He is the only Governor General we have had who was forced to resign because of media and public pressure. His alleged crime was not reporting the proclivities and sexual activities of several paedophile priests in his diocese. It was beyond doubt that priests who he was responsible for had committed crimes, and in all likelihood, he knew about this, but did not report it. Like several other religious leaders, including former Cardinal George Pell, it is believed that when Archbishop Hollingsworth became aware of these people and their activities, he simply moved them around from one parish to the next. He was never found to be criminally liable for not reporting but the suspicion and public pressure was enough to lead him to resign as Governor-General, although still retaining his government pension of about four times the annual average salary. In April this year, an internal inquiry by the Anglican church found him guilty of misconduct, but said he could keep his job if he apologised to the victims of the paedophile priests. This was in the face of many calls that he be defrocked. The following month he voluntarily gave up his right to officiate in religious services. In 2018 the former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, our 4th largest city was found guilty of failing to report the activities of priests he knew had committed offences more than 40 years previously, in the 1970s.

Advice, counsel, suggestions, recommendations, instructions, directions, warnings, threats, they all have some overlap in their meanings in that they are statements that invite action, but in this instance, it says the people were threatened, not warned, or counselled or advised or recommended or instructed or suggested. I can more easily picture the Saviour and His prophets pleading with me to take advantage of the atonement than I can picture them threatening me about the consequences if I don't. So when I see some about the prophets threatening the Lord's people, it makes me curious.

I'm curious about the use of the word threaten in that verse. It has a similar, but not identical meaning to warn, or counsel, or advise. I can imagine President Nelson, or President Monson warning the church, or the world, but I would it harder to imagine them saying that God is threatening us. The motives behind a threat are often quite different from the motives behind a warning. So in this particular instance, my thoughts about the accuracy of this scripture arise from the possibility that God's prophets were warning, not threatening, the people.

From my scripture reading this morning: 10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be adestroyed from off the face of the land. How accurate do you think this verse is?

Being angry in Colorado is a reportable issue?

Here's how the child abuse part of mandatory reporting works. I believe it is similar for domestic violence. Report child abuse In the Northern Territory (NT), you must report your concerns if you believe a child is being, or has been, harmed or abused. This is a legal responsibility under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 and is called mandatory reporting. Your report should include any relevant information about your concerns for the child's safety and wellbeing. You don't need proof of harm or abuse to report your concerns - you just need a reasonable belief that a child has been harmed or is likely to be harmed. If you are worried about neglect or harm to a child but are not sure if it's something you should report, you should talk about your concerns with professional staff at the child protection reporting line on 1800 700 250. The reporting line operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You are safeguarded under the law from legal or professional liability if you make a report in good faith. https://nt.gov.au/law/crime/report-child-abuse#:~:text=In the Northern Territory (NT,and is called mandatory reporting.

You're right, I suspect there is a very low level of awareness of the mandatory reporting laws. In the email I sent to the EQP last night I suggested that perhaps there might need to be some training on this topic, and not just in our branch. This is a particularly sensitive problem where I live. We have a high indigenous population here, approximately 30%, and most indigenous families here have been affected by what is known as the stolen generation, which is the term used to describe a long held federal government policy, abandoned only in the early 1970' I think, of seeking to assimilate aboriginal people into white society. But on the other hand, home situations amongst aboriginal people are generally far worse, and much closer to a need for government intervention. I have very similar sentiments. I have a low level of trust when it comes to the "effectiveness" of the state taking a child from their family and placing them with another family or institution. Mind you, I am only aware of the stories from one side of the ledgar, ie, those that make it into the media because of spectacular failure. I don't know how many genuine success stories there are. No doubt @JustAGuy would have an interesting perspective on this. And yes, I suspect that the majority of social workers have a shoot first and ask later type approach. And its so much easier for a social worker to make a decision than it is to then undo a decision through court processes.

In many Australian states and territories, legislation about mandatory reporting requirements impose an obligation to report suspicions of abuse or violence, particularly in relation to children. In most jurisdictions, this requirement is limited to people likely to be working with children, eg, teachers, social workers, medical specialists and the like. However, in the jurisdiction where I live, everybody over the age of 18 is mandatorily required to report suspicions of abuse and domestic violence. A ministering visit has recently taken place in our branch which led to the ministering visitor making a mandatory report to a government agency. I can see how this might be problematic for two reasons - I suspect there is a very low percentage of ministering brothers and sisters who are aware of their mandatory reporting obligations, so that could lead to a situation whereby church members carrying out a church responsibility, might be in breach of mandatory reporting requirements by failing to report what they see during their ministering visits. Secondly, there may be some members who, if they knew that a ministering visit could potentially generate a mandatory report, might become hesitant about allowing ministering visits in their home. Does anyone else live in a jurisdiction where everybody over the age of 18 has a requirement to mandatorily report, and if so, does this have any impact on how ministering is done?

Surely you don't imagine that Putin would choose the dreariness of Disney above the delights of Dubbo? Not even Putin would make such a dumb decision. I've heard that Dubbo has a really good fish and chip shop and that you can get a decent pizza there. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dubbo+NSW+2830/@-32.2520848,148.5952579,6223m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x6b0f71b04ca4913b:0x50609b490442530!8m2!3d-32.2443908!4d148.614418!16zL20vMDIwNzRz?authuser=0&entry=ttu

We all need to have some sort of standards and its up to each of us to decide what our standards are and if or when we will make exceptions.

Australia's Federal Treasurer solved this problem more than 20 years ago. As part of his Budget speech in 2002 (the annual speech he gives in Parliament when he is introduction the Budget for the coming year, he introduced a $3,000 baby bonus for every new born baby and encouraged parents to "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country." Australian's accepted his invitation and the birth rate went up for a few years. Australia was in the midst of a resources boom at the time and the government had more money than usual. I can't remember how long the baby bonus lasted, maybe only until the 2002 financial crisis. From the Australian Financial Review of 2017 https://www.afr.com/politics/peter-costellos-baby-bonus-generation-grows-up-20170831-gy7wfg When introducing the baby bonus scheme in 2002, treasurer Peter Costello famously encouraged Australians to "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country". Costello would be happy to know as the baby bonus generation grows up, there will be a record number of Australians coming of age in the next decade. According to Deloitte Access Economics, by 2030 there will be 360,000 Australians turning 18 years old a year – a staggering 20 per cent increase from the current level of 300,000.

A comparison of skeletal remains suggests that previous versions would have been made in an image that at best has some similarities with the image of God.

I think that one potential obstacle the vellum hyphothesis would have to deal with is the fossil record. If previous versions of humanity were of a similar quality to the existing version then I suspect we would have found more evidence of them, either in the form of skeletons or artefacts. Even an event as cataclysmic as the Chicxulub impact left behind plenty of evidence of the life forms that preceded it. A second potential obstacle, and I admit, this sounds a bit strange, is the possible lack of space when the Earth is in its celestial state. If the Earth is our eternal home after this life for all who have ever lived on it, and if the current version of humanity is just one of many versions of all who have lived on Earth, it could become quite crowded if we are all living in the same space at the same time.

51. First Nations People Leave 51.1 First Nations Employees, other than casual Employees, are entitled to paid leave up to a maximum of five (5) working days, and unpaid leave up to an additional ten (10) working days, per calendar year for the purpose of: 51.1.1 bereavement leave (in addition to compassionate leave) for an Immediate Family member (this includes traditional kinship relationships of equivalent significance); 51.1.2 participating in National Aboriginal and Islander Day of Observance Committee (NAIDOC) activities/events during NAIDOC week; 51.1.3 fulfilling ceremonial obligations of a traditional or urban nature, which may include cultural events, initiations, birthing’s and naming’s, funerals and smoking or cleansing, sacred site or land ceremonies or other relevant cultural events; and 51.1.4 other grounds approved by the University. 51.2 First Nations People Leave is not cumulative from year to year.

Yes, often related to funerals, known as "sorry business" but sometimes related to initiations, corroborees and marking of important dates. The duration of these occasions varies considerably.

I work in an area that is significantly affected by workplace shortages. My place of employment signed a new Enterprise Agreement with its staff a few months back. About 62% of staff voted in favour of the new agreement. One of its main features is the expansion of reasons for which paid leave could be granted. Amongst other things the list now includes Menstruation and Menopausal Leave, Gender Affirmation Leave, and First Nations People Leave.