askandanswer

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith.  You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict...
Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours.  You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs.  Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff.  If works don't matter, why does He command them?  Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us.  One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey.  They're not incompatible.

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever. 

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever. 

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever. 

Somebody said this joke are church today, perhaps in poor taste but it made me chuckle:
A man was given a prognosis of only 6 months left to live. In disbelief he goes to another clinic for a second opinion, and after a series of test, it is confirmed, he would only have 6 months left to live. 
 
He goes back to the first doctor, and asks "is there anything that be done?" "No." Says the doctor. Saddened he replies "I just don't know what to do." The doctor says "Can I offer a non-medical course of action?" Perking up, the man says "yes, I'll do anything!" The doctor says, "Go find your local LDS church, join it. Completely immerse yourself in all the church has to offer, totally commit yourself to it, and fully engross yourself in its community." Excited, the man asks "Will it help me live forever?" The doctor says, "No, but it'll be the longest 6 months you'll ever have." 

Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. Adam said, "Look at us, Eve. We live in paradise. One with nature. One with God. We never age, we will never die, and all of our desires are granted the moment we think them." Eve replied, "Yeah, I know. It's just not enough, is it?"

Zil's place?
 

(Coober Pedy, South Australia, part of the mission I live in)

Splitting mountains is not particularly difficult although it does take a bit of time. This is the sort of thing that Australian mining companies regularly do. All that is necessary for the Mount of Olives to be split in two is for gold, copper, or oil to be discovered underneath.
 

(Mount Tom Price, Western Australia, in the neighbouring mission.) 

Zil's place?
 

(Coober Pedy, South Australia, part of the mission I live in)

I want to echo this sentiment. Brigham was by no means a perfect man, and I am sure he would be willing to agree to that at least. He was stubborn, dedicated, could hold a grudge but when he forgave it was complete, he could be fiery and blunt in his rhetoric and could organise a group as well as anyone ever. He was a complex man with many great qualities and, as with all of us, flaws to go along with it.
As for the specific incident itself, I personally do not feel troubled by it. Now I cannot say what should or should not trouble you. That is entirely a personal thing and some issues that do not even make my eyebrow twitch (say the variations in the 1st vision accounts) are devastating for others. And it is not wrong for them to feel that way. All I can do is explain why, or why not, something affects or comforts me.
 
As a general rule I have never expected the Church, especially in general church meetings or Sunday school, to provide even a remotely comprehensive overview of church history. I always expected what we got was a highlight reel so to speak. Now the Church DID have a habit of not widely discussing some quite negative things for a while (a mistake I feel, but an understandable one) in favour of faith promoting stories and lessons that highlight Gospel principles. I understand this, and the more..... affecting historical information was always available and discussed by some. But I would no more expect, say, a General Conference talk or an institute lesson on this event than I would expect a Catholic seminary to spend any time talking about the Cathars. It is not, IMO, the Church's job to teach me much about the history outside the immediate restoration.
That said, this is my own view. But it means I am not unhappy or upset if I find some reference in history that seems quite bad. I didn't expect everything to be shared, and if a story is not focused on teaching me to follow Christ or live the Gospel I see no reason to expect it to be brought up in any meeting.
 
But as for the specifics of this event. Based on what some others have said, but focusing on just the transcript, this decision was made at the tail end of a long series of raids by a particular group of Native Americans that had resulted in much stolen property (of the near irreplaceable kind that could result in death or starvation) and them promising to continue.
In this context Brigham has a duty of care to defend his people, and that includes armed resistance. Now if a group of 60 armed men are enough to stop the raids (as context implies) and at most 100 others are needed then it is unlikely a very large group. So it reads to me more like sending a local militia to deal with a violent criminal gang than an extermination as such.
But based just on the minimal context I have this seems to me like a final decision to stop a group of attackers by any means necessary, and so to exterminate them. Of course the transcript from the link is a small part of the discussion but such an order does not trouble me.
Basically if armed men are stealing from me, and have seemingly killed at least 2 of my people, then heading off to wipe out that group is justifiable. Harsh, but justifiable and in line with many older biblical commands to fight and kill other groups doing evil deeds. The first comparable event that springs to mind is Ammon and King Lamoni, where he killed a large number of raiders with seeming divine approval and I feel no qualms about that story.
 
This is not to say, again, anyone else needs to feel comfortable with the decision. Or to think it is an unpleasant event. But it is not one I would be ashamed to admit to being involved in based purely on the tidbits we have here. If more information changes that context then that is fair, but as is... well I am not disturbed for the above reasons.

How about the time BY snuck up on a passed out drunkard and chopped his head off. Oh wait, that was a different prophet.
Or how about BY trying to slit his own son's throat because he thought God told him to. Oh wait, that was a different prophet as well. 
Perhaps that they were all prophets is the only context that matters. That of course won't fly with those outside the Church but with some things that's all there is because sometimes what God does (or wants done) flies in the face of all mortal reasoning. 
I can already hear the retort: "But God actually told them to do those things!" Well how can we know what God did and didn't tell BY to do? I don't think any of us is in a position to pass judgement on him. 
If you were simply looking for a way to explain such things to those not of our faith, I wish you well. But for those of our faith it really shouldn't require apologetics.

Plural marriage was introduced somewhere around 1831 to 1834.  The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882. The Church went through the court system for many years contesting the act with various arguments. In 1890 The Manifesto was published. So, initially, it wasn't illegal.  When it became illegal, we tried to fight it through the legal system and the political process.  When we realized all our options were exhausted, we agreed to comply.
Ironically the LGBTQ movement has brought about conditions that one would be hard-pressed to make an argument that this law would pass Constitutional muster if brought before the Supreme Court -- especially with the vehemence that federal agents persecuted the Saints in the 1880s.
While bigamy laws are on the books in all 50 states, most of the time they get a slap on the wrist and dissolve one or both marriages legally.  But, of course, it is perfectly legal to have "an open marriage."  And they don't prosecute adulterous relationships anymore.  Yeah, that makes sense.
To be perfectly willing to pledge support and fealty to many wives with a legally binding contract: That's illegal.
To only have a legally binding contract with one woman but have free non-binding relationships with as many others as I want.  That's legal.

Exodus 3:14
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Exodus 3:14
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Perhaps what President Nelson really meant to say was 
In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of A.I.
I mean, its a lot more accessible, to a lot more people, and for many people, much easier to understand  

Perhaps what President Nelson really meant to say was 
In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of A.I.
I mean, its a lot more accessible, to a lot more people, and for many people, much easier to understand  

Perhaps by the unit of measurement used by Those who create, to be perfect, a created being requires agency, and without agency, the created thing is an imperfect creation. If this were true, it would follow that a perfect creation would result in a creation that makes mistakes and poor choices.

Just remember the rules of this particular forum section for those responding.
Support in Hard Times
"In the quiet heart is hidden / Sorrow that the eye can't see." This Forum is to give encouragement and show compassion to those who are going through difficult times in relationships, with their testimony or with any other trial that they would like to have support from in a safe environment that offers the anonymity of the Internet.

No judgment, demeaning or derogatory posts allowed: "To the wounded and the weary / I would show a gentle heart." Focus on the positives, the pure love of Christ, and how we can rise above to overcome difficult times.

Brian Hales is probably the leading expert on Joseph Smith’s plural marriages and he recently did a couple of episodes with “Mormonism With the Murph” on YouTube where he addresses a lot of this.
IIRC, as to Section 132 itself:  in short, we have a number of contemporaneous accounts (including from people who rejected it, like Marks and Law) of Joseph Smith having shown it to them or otherwise teaching it.
Hales also points out that JS basically took plural wives in three “waves”, if you will:
1) Fanny Alger.  That situation blows up so badly that JS abandons plural marriage for years.
2) Following a threat from an angel with a drawn sword, JS begins marrying plural wives—but nearly all of them are women who are already married to other men.  Hales posits that he deliberately chose married women because, out of respect for Emma as well as Joseph’s own feelings, he planned to have these be sexless “eternity-only” marriages.
3)  The angel with drawn sword comes again, basically saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it.  Now, do it right.”  At this point Smith’s future brides are single women, and several of them later affirm (as genteelly as Victorians ever would) that there was indeed a sexual element to their marriages with Smith.

This.  This is what I have observed.  (Too many) LGBTQ+ people don't want to live their lives in peace and leave everyone else to do the same.  They want revenge and they want to be the dictators of what we're allowed to think, say, believe, and do.  They think the ends justify the means and there's no such thing as going too far - right down to calling for violence against a family of four (a couple and two minor children) as an appropriate response to the couple's pastor saying homosexuality is a sin and Christians ought not to participate in "Pride celebrations".  (I witnessed this.  The mob contained about 800 people.)  Sorry, but you're (generic "you") going to have a hard time convincing me these folk just want to live in peace with the rest of us when 800 of them ganged up to say otherwise.

We are also upsetting some of our closest allies, which is never a smart idea.  Russia loves it, China loves that we are doing this, so does North Korea. 
Tariffs can be useful, but we shouldn't be upsetting our allies while doing it  (along with other threats, like telling Denmark that they should give us Greenland). 
Also, anyone who thinks other countries will pay the Tariff are kidding themselves.  Tariffs are paid on items coming into the country, and thus are paid for by those who buy those items in that country.

The ridiculous story about the "red horse," and "the black horse," and "the white horse," and a lot of trash that has been circulated about and printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a matter that was gotten up, I understand, some ten years after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have-heard him utter from time to time, and formulated this so called revelation out of it, and it was never spoken by the prophet in the manner in which they have put it forth. It is simply false: that is all there is to it. (Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, October 1918, p.58.)

I wasn’t going to say anything out of shame, but you’re right. I’m terribly embarrassed but I’ve been scammed. This isn’t one of your minor scams where you might have to buy a new computer — I’m talking about a major scam where I’m out of my life savings. Just so you know I’m serious, I’m talking about $3.5 million.
This was all tied up in a trust to be given to my 2 sons when I died, but now through a series of legal shenanigans I’ve blindly signed it over to a group of charlatans. I’ve spoken to lawyers but they say it’s morally wrong but legally legit. I’ve exhausted every remedy I can think of and I’m at desperation. I can’t just pull the money and put it in another fund because any fund directly tied to me would be theirs as well (this is why I dare not transfer it to my sons now).
The only thing I can think of is if someone unrelated to me is kind enough to let me transfer it to their name. According to the legal documents, you need only hold onto it for three years before transferring it back to my sons (we’ll use different accounts). For your generosity and gel in the matter you may keep $150,000 for yourself.
Your help is appreciated.
*generic “you”, it doesn’t have to be @LDSGator

Oh dude you texted back.   All that does is confirm you are a "live number", which means you'll be added to a list and sold worldwide for the next gazillion years.
It might help if you think of the guy who sent you a text like this: 
Somewhere in India, our friend got to work by 9am.  Today's first job involves canvassing 38,000 cell numbers looking for live ones.  His boss got the numbers from a data leak - all these folks have spent money at Disney in the last 2 years.  The list came with a script to use written by one of his team with good English skills.   He writes a script that will take the words from disney.txt, and send it to all 38k numbers.   It's quick to do, and he moves on to other tasks.  Tomorrow morning he'll run a scrape on all the numbers who responded, and generate a "hot list" which he'll forward to his entire team, so they can prioritize who to contact for their various scams.
Somewhere in that list is Gator's cell number.   Because you responded.

I think you might misunderstand the reason we read such books. 
The methods that self-help books offer is not going to "fix you."  It is to feed your brain good principles.  The more good stuff you put into your brain vs bad stuff, the better your mind will function and take you in the right direction.
If anyone claims that by reading one book all of a sudden changed their lives to become uber-successful, that is probably hype (exceptions for divine works).
Reading one book won't change you or fix all your problems.  But by consistently reading many good books with good principles throughout your life, you will program yourself to think more clearly based on correct principles.  And if you do so, you will find more success in whatever your endeavors.