askandanswer

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. 
 

Hurry please. While I'm generally in favour of police restraint, in this case I can't understand the reason for the delay. 

Exactly. Be brave, don't be a chicken and show those chooks how to do it. 

You might need to teach by example

Hurry please. While I'm generally in favour of police restraint, in this case I can't understand the reason for the delay. 

It only seems hard because of our fear and pride. It only seems easy because of His atonement. It wasn't so easy for Him. 
(New Testament | Luke 22:44)
44  And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Just something to keep in mind, and to share with others while on your mission. 
 

Exactly. Be brave, don't be a chicken and show those chooks how to do it. 

Pen lover