askandanswer

I think the world just became a better place - slightly less noise pollution
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/black-sabbath-reaches-the-end-as-band-performs-final-concert-in-birmingham-video/
 

PPI? Pally Peptalk and Intervention? Polite Preparatory Insult? PEanut and Pecan Icecream! I got it at last!

I offer this possibility without scriptural support or suggesting that it is what I believe in – its just something to think about.
I believe that we began our existence as an intelligence, that through means unknown, gradually acquired a sense of self awareness and capacity to choose. By repeatedly making a certain type of choice, some intelligences began to progress, to the point where their capacities began to increase. This intelligence is the core, and the beginning of our being, and existed entirely independently of God.
Some intelligences progressed to the point where, without further assistance, they could progress no further – they had reached the limit of natural capacities. Or perhaps they had reached the point where they were able to be joined to a spirit .At that point, our Father, through means unknown, combined us, as a limited, independently existing intelligences, with a spirit that He had made, and we changed from being an intelligence, to becoming a soul. As before, by making certain choices, some of us continued to grow and progress and expand in capacity. I suspect that by this point, our decision making ability, and the decisions we were making, were being influenced by the spiritual component of our being, and our proximity to our Father.
Once again, many souls progressed to the point where they were no longer able to progress any further. To progress further, we needed something else, and this something else was made available to us in the form of a body. This body is a carnal creation, created by the reproductive activities of our parents. Our Heavenly Parents added to this body a mind. I believe that our mind is the interface between our physical brain and spiritual stimuli. I think that spiritual promptings come from the Holy Ghost, to our mind, which then processes or transmits those promptings into our brains. I believe that our mind is equally susceptible to “promptings” eg, thoughts, feelings, desires, from Satan, and in the same way as promptings from the Spirit, these promptings are also passed from our mind into our brain where we make a conscious decision on how to respond to these promptings. To tilt things in our favour, we were all blessed with the light of Christ. I believe this light acts in our minds in such a way as to make us more receptive to promptings received from the Spirit rather than from the devil.
I don’t have any references, scriptural or otherwise, to support these views. These are just some ideas I have come up with after giving the matter some occasional thought over the years.
I suspect that further understanding of the differences between mind and brain can be obtained through a study of decision neuroscience which studies the physical processes that our happening in the brain while a decision is being made.(eg http://dlab.unimelb.edu.au/home) If our decisions are influenced by spiritual promptings, there is likely to be a point in our decision making equipment - our brain - where this influence occurs, and since our decision making process is a physical process, there is also likely to be some sort of interaction between the physical and the spiritual, along with a place of interaction, and observable evidence of that interaction. One theory that I vaguely remember reading is that during the decision making process, the neurons in the decision making area of our brain are initially in a state of flux, and as they begin to line up in the same orientation, our decision is made. I remember thinking to myself at the time that maybe all the Spirit has to do to prompt a certain decision is to change the orientation of a few neurons in our brain at the right moment. If this idea is correct it would give some insight into where and how the Spirit interacts with our physical bodies. 

I think it's more shocking to them that you're using it as an ashtray.

An interesting similarity - I also have a brother who had mental health issues and had to serve a three month "mini mission" before he was able to serve a full time mission. The cool thing is that about 18 months after he finished his mini mission I went to the MTC with someone he baptised. 

Nope.
Yep.
There's actually an official statement on this (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine ).  This is an exert of it, bolding is mine:
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
 

(Continued from above)
You're looking through a modern-sensablities bias lens here.  Do you want to write a letter to Jacob and tell him "I'm sorry Jacob, you're only allowed to have one wife.  Please leave your other three behind, sucks to be them".  No!  Such is nonsense!   That's how things were back then.   Nowadays, if you want to marry more than one chick you'll be immediately kicked out of the Church, because such is strictly forbidden.  
As to D&C 132:63, that verse is saying essentially "wife don't cheat on your husband".  
If I tell Bob "give up the meth or it's going to destroy you", is that me/God restricting Bob's agency?  No!  Rather specifically supporting Bob's agency: he can do this OR this, he gets to choose.  With each choice comes consequences.  
It was the same with Emma's choice she had.  She could accept that God had told her husband to do this OR she could not.  The latter choice undoubtably would have shattered her marriage and faith.
This practice, like the Law of Moses, was commanded in some periods of time and forbidden in others.  For the last century+ it's been forbidden.
Would you ask the same question as to whether or not you're supposed to slaughter oxen on an alter?
(Man this is the longest reply I've written in a while)

In our stake, a few years ago, someone sent in their mission papers, and received a reply that in effect said, no, not yet, wait. I think that in these circumstances, having applied to serve a mission and being told not, that it would have been wrong for this person to have then served a mission at that time. This would seem to be an exception to the rule. I have no idea how common it is but it seems to be a perfectly valid and legitimate exception. About six months later they were invited to submit their application, which they did, and were then called to serve in a nearby mission. They came home after about 12 months, something to do with anxiety. 

In our stake, a few years ago, someone sent in their mission papers, and received a reply that in effect said, no, not yet, wait. I think that in these circumstances, having applied to serve a mission and being told not, that it would have been wrong for this person to have then served a mission at that time. This would seem to be an exception to the rule. I have no idea how common it is but it seems to be a perfectly valid and legitimate exception. About six months later they were invited to submit their application, which they did, and were then called to serve in a nearby mission. They came home after about 12 months, something to do with anxiety. 

My vacuum cleaner sucks

For Vort and speakers of what President Uchtdorf mistakenly believes is the "celestial language"
No matter how kind you think you are, German kids are kinder

But that joke isn't lame. It's awesome.

For Vort and speakers of what President Uchtdorf mistakenly believes is the "celestial language"
No matter how kind you think you are, German kids are kinder

The Revelations in Context series are very helpful. If I recall correctly:
1-Oliver had a conscience and common sense. He was a teacher of children and understood the principle of finding things out. He used a divining rod, which the Lord recognized as a bonafide means of finding things out. He had studied things out with Joseph before, as shown in Section 7. And in 8:12, it is clear the Lord had spoken to him before.
2-Jospeh spent many years "studying" with Mornoni. Oliver didn't have this exact advantage of tutelage, but he could still ponder, which I think is the same thing, and something he was used to doing with his gift of Aaron for some time (the sprout, the rod, divining).
3-The online essays get into these types of translation. Enjoy!

"I'm pretty sure that guy is faking it."
"This will not end well once that train starts moving."
"Maybe you CAN smell kimchee seeping out of a person's pores."
"I did not think that's what a soul train was, but it makes sense."
"Silly muggles, what with banging their heads into platform 9 3/4 and their delayed concussions, wot."

Decades ago. But I can't help wandering what happened to the wisdom that often seems to accompany old age. 

You of course can read it front to back .  Or feel free to jump to the climax (when Christ arrives), that's in 3 Nephi chapter 11.
One thing that would help you is having a timeline of events, since the book of Mormon does have a storyline.  To make things complicated the book doesn't always go in chronological order, so it can get confusing.  Here is basic timeline showing the different groups of people and linking it up to different books--
http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/121-122ChronologyCES.jpg
Here is another one which is more complicated, discussing actual events.  (https://seminary.lds.org/bc/content/seminary/materials/english/student-resources/book-of-mormon-times-at-a-glance-charteng.pdf).  
@Sunday21 has some nice resources too, so I'll ping her for you.

Look at Australia as a case study. In about 2007, the Liberal government in power at the time had almost stopped the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. Then, in 2008, the Labour government in power at the time, perhaps to appease the left wing of their party, abolished some of the measures that the previous government had put in place to stop the refugee flow. As a result, over the next five years, almost 50,000 asylum seekers found their way to Australia through non-legal means. When the government changed again, in 2012, with the Liberal's back in power, a series of increasingly strict, some say harsh measures were put in place which gradually began to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. In the words of Australia's Minister for Immigration, these measures have been aimed directly at "breaking the business model of the people smugglers." Now, in the last year and a half, as these measures have began to take affect, we have had no "unauthorised maritime arrivals" (that's government speak for non-legal asylum seekers). 
I believe that of the many different components of the policies aimed at stopping the asylum seekers, the one that has had the greatest impact is the government's iron clad guarantee that no non-legal asylum seeker will EVER be allowed to settle in Australia, under any circumstances. Even if their claim for asylum is processed and it is found that the applicant is a genuine refugee, and does have a legal claim for protection, the Australian government has decided that that person will not be settled in Australia. Most NGOs and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees say that this policy brings Australia into breach of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but the government's lawyers have been able to find a way to say that even with this policy, Australia is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Other components of the policy are off shore processing and mandatory detention. If an unauthorised maritime arrival did occur in Australia, the people on that boat would be taken into custody, then flown on a government chartered plane to a tiny failed state called Nauru, the second smallest country in the world after The Vatican, or to a remote island called Manus, in Papua New Guinea where they are held in a secure facility under guard. Their claim for asylum would not be processed in Australia or by Australians and they would not have access to the Australian legal system. Once a decision has been made concerning their refugee status, they are allowed out of the secure facility, but they have to stay in Nauru or Manus until a third country offers to take them in. This whole process has no definite time line and usually takes several years.
These policies, combined with other deterrents, completely removes the biggest marketing tool used by the people smugglers. They have no product to sell if they cannot ensure that their "customers" will be settled in Australia. They have been effective in completely stopping the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals for about the last 18 months. 
The following should be noted:
These policies are aimed solely at people who try to come here by boat. They are not aimed at, or effective in relation to, those who fly here.
As a nation that has a whole continent to itself, with no land borders with any other country, we don't have to worry about building fences.
Many Australian people are concerned about how strict and harsh and inhumane these policies are and there have been many protests and demonstrations against them, but both the government and the Opposition support them, although the Opposition says they would try to enforce them in a softer, kinder way. Many people are uncomfortable with these policies but cannot see any other way to stop the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals because the moment you open up a loop hole, the people smugglers will take full advantage of it. 
On a per capita basis, Australia has one of the highest intakes of legal asylum seekers of any country in the world. We accept and welcome legal asylum seekers but not the illegal ones. 
It can fairly be said that at the cost of great misery, and with some doubtful legal interpretations of the Convention and way too many dollars, we are in control of our borders, and our borders are secure. 
 

If you could get them to carefully dump it only on the roof guttering, the letter box, and the front gate, and to use a color close to Dulux A277 Picture Book green (http://m.dulux.com.au/colour/hue/Greens), that would be a rare example of a fountain pen user actually doing something useful. But I guess I'm setting my hopes way too high. 

Violence towards fountain pens is perfectly acceptable.I actually think it should be mandatory. 

Look at Australia as a case study. In about 2007, the Liberal government in power at the time had almost stopped the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. Then, in 2008, the Labour government in power at the time, perhaps to appease the left wing of their party, abolished some of the measures that the previous government had put in place to stop the refugee flow. As a result, over the next five years, almost 50,000 asylum seekers found their way to Australia through non-legal means. When the government changed again, in 2012, with the Liberal's back in power, a series of increasingly strict, some say harsh measures were put in place which gradually began to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. In the words of Australia's Minister for Immigration, these measures have been aimed directly at "breaking the business model of the people smugglers." Now, in the last year and a half, as these measures have began to take affect, we have had no "unauthorised maritime arrivals" (that's government speak for non-legal asylum seekers). 
I believe that of the many different components of the policies aimed at stopping the asylum seekers, the one that has had the greatest impact is the government's iron clad guarantee that no non-legal asylum seeker will EVER be allowed to settle in Australia, under any circumstances. Even if their claim for asylum is processed and it is found that the applicant is a genuine refugee, and does have a legal claim for protection, the Australian government has decided that that person will not be settled in Australia. Most NGOs and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees say that this policy brings Australia into breach of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but the government's lawyers have been able to find a way to say that even with this policy, Australia is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Other components of the policy are off shore processing and mandatory detention. If an unauthorised maritime arrival did occur in Australia, the people on that boat would be taken into custody, then flown on a government chartered plane to a tiny failed state called Nauru, the second smallest country in the world after The Vatican, or to a remote island called Manus, in Papua New Guinea where they are held in a secure facility under guard. Their claim for asylum would not be processed in Australia or by Australians and they would not have access to the Australian legal system. Once a decision has been made concerning their refugee status, they are allowed out of the secure facility, but they have to stay in Nauru or Manus until a third country offers to take them in. This whole process has no definite time line and usually takes several years.
These policies, combined with other deterrents, completely removes the biggest marketing tool used by the people smugglers. They have no product to sell if they cannot ensure that their "customers" will be settled in Australia. They have been effective in completely stopping the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals for about the last 18 months. 
The following should be noted:
These policies are aimed solely at people who try to come here by boat. They are not aimed at, or effective in relation to, those who fly here.
As a nation that has a whole continent to itself, with no land borders with any other country, we don't have to worry about building fences.
Many Australian people are concerned about how strict and harsh and inhumane these policies are and there have been many protests and demonstrations against them, but both the government and the Opposition support them, although the Opposition says they would try to enforce them in a softer, kinder way. Many people are uncomfortable with these policies but cannot see any other way to stop the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals because the moment you open up a loop hole, the people smugglers will take full advantage of it. 
On a per capita basis, Australia has one of the highest intakes of legal asylum seekers of any country in the world. We accept and welcome legal asylum seekers but not the illegal ones. 
It can fairly be said that at the cost of great misery, and with some doubtful legal interpretations of the Convention and way too many dollars, we are in control of our borders, and our borders are secure. 
 

Look at Australia as a case study. In about 2007, the Liberal government in power at the time had almost stopped the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. Then, in 2008, the Labour government in power at the time, perhaps to appease the left wing of their party, abolished some of the measures that the previous government had put in place to stop the refugee flow. As a result, over the next five years, almost 50,000 asylum seekers found their way to Australia through non-legal means. When the government changed again, in 2012, with the Liberal's back in power, a series of increasingly strict, some say harsh measures were put in place which gradually began to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. In the words of Australia's Minister for Immigration, these measures have been aimed directly at "breaking the business model of the people smugglers." Now, in the last year and a half, as these measures have began to take affect, we have had no "unauthorised maritime arrivals" (that's government speak for non-legal asylum seekers). 
I believe that of the many different components of the policies aimed at stopping the asylum seekers, the one that has had the greatest impact is the government's iron clad guarantee that no non-legal asylum seeker will EVER be allowed to settle in Australia, under any circumstances. Even if their claim for asylum is processed and it is found that the applicant is a genuine refugee, and does have a legal claim for protection, the Australian government has decided that that person will not be settled in Australia. Most NGOs and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees say that this policy brings Australia into breach of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but the government's lawyers have been able to find a way to say that even with this policy, Australia is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Other components of the policy are off shore processing and mandatory detention. If an unauthorised maritime arrival did occur in Australia, the people on that boat would be taken into custody, then flown on a government chartered plane to a tiny failed state called Nauru, the second smallest country in the world after The Vatican, or to a remote island called Manus, in Papua New Guinea where they are held in a secure facility under guard. Their claim for asylum would not be processed in Australia or by Australians and they would not have access to the Australian legal system. Once a decision has been made concerning their refugee status, they are allowed out of the secure facility, but they have to stay in Nauru or Manus until a third country offers to take them in. This whole process has no definite time line and usually takes several years.
These policies, combined with other deterrents, completely removes the biggest marketing tool used by the people smugglers. They have no product to sell if they cannot ensure that their "customers" will be settled in Australia. They have been effective in completely stopping the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals for about the last 18 months. 
The following should be noted:
These policies are aimed solely at people who try to come here by boat. They are not aimed at, or effective in relation to, those who fly here.
As a nation that has a whole continent to itself, with no land borders with any other country, we don't have to worry about building fences.
Many Australian people are concerned about how strict and harsh and inhumane these policies are and there have been many protests and demonstrations against them, but both the government and the Opposition support them, although the Opposition says they would try to enforce them in a softer, kinder way. Many people are uncomfortable with these policies but cannot see any other way to stop the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals because the moment you open up a loop hole, the people smugglers will take full advantage of it. 
On a per capita basis, Australia has one of the highest intakes of legal asylum seekers of any country in the world. We accept and welcome legal asylum seekers but not the illegal ones. 
It can fairly be said that at the cost of great misery, and with some doubtful legal interpretations of the Convention and way too many dollars, we are in control of our borders, and our borders are secure. 
 

I think the thread jacks are the most entertaining part of this forum. Next to the domestic affairs of @zil and @MormonGator....
and the odd and massively outdated musical tastes of @mirkwood and Gator! Amazed those bands can still get on stage without a walker! I bet they have their support workers waiting anxiously back stage to whisk them back to assisted living!

I think this is what fiction food tastes like
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:8)
8  It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite:

I'm gonna hire those beagle pups to do it for me.