JohnsonJones

As per a correction in another thread shouldn't this actually be
TCoJCoLdS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...don't forget "The")
However...when looking at it that Latter-day is a Hyphenated word...thus LDS should actually be LS...OR we could even say...
LSD (as in Latter-day Saints Defined...)
It would even be
TCoJCoLS
These abbreviation things get complicated...

Well, I know you like Metal to some degree...NOT KISS but maybe this will do for you?
Though it says Metallica I believe the actual band is the Trans Siberian Orchestra.
And if you like that one, here's another for you
 

Exactly.

As per a correction in another thread shouldn't this actually be
TCoJCoLdS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...don't forget "The")
However...when looking at it that Latter-day is a Hyphenated word...thus LDS should actually be LS...OR we could even say...
LSD (as in Latter-day Saints Defined...)
It would even be
TCoJCoLS
These abbreviation things get complicated...

From some of the things in this thread I think it means that as I am a Historian, but as such work at a University and am thus part of the evil overlord cast of Teachers, Professors, and Scholarly pursuits...
SJW = JohnsonJones
Or something like that.

 
PS: Only said it (with some humor) as @MormonGator already explained the real abbreviation for what it stands for.

But they are really NICE Hockey fights....and they have rules.  No pile ons, no low blows, and a five minute time out to boot!
Canadians are even polite and nice about their fighting!!!

The first couple of Christmases and birthdays were great. We just wrapped up our baby's favorite toy, and he was so excited to open it up and play with it.

I think where we get into trouble, apostasy-wise, is when we quit bothering to even ask for the direct confirmation; or when we try to muzzle the Lord when He tells us something that doesn’t fit in our paradigm.   Certainly we need to be wary of man-made logic; and yes, there are certain axioms or postulates that can only be spiritually confirmed.  On the other hand, I think intellectual reasoning is also a divine gift that, when kept within certain bounds, can keep us anxiously engaged in the path of faith even when we don’t have as much direct revelation as we wish we did. 

I think where we get into trouble, apostasy-wise, is when we quit bothering to even ask for the direct confirmation; or when we try to muzzle the Lord when He tells us something that doesn’t fit in our paradigm.   Certainly we need to be wary of man-made logic; and yes, there are certain axioms or postulates that can only be spiritually confirmed.  On the other hand, I think intellectual reasoning is also a divine gift that, when kept within certain bounds, can keep us anxiously engaged in the path of faith even when we don’t have as much direct revelation as we wish we did. 

As Adam was the first Man, I do not believe that there were people (spiritual beings) prior to Adam.  I don't discount the possibility that there may be humanoids without eternal spirits roaming the planet before Adam.

It is possible that there was a world wide human civilization on earth that was destroyed by the Younger Dryas Meteor impact of 10,900 B.C. 

Maybe he doesn't know the Nicene Creed. Pretty hard to recite something you don't have memorized. If it was written out somewhere, he could read it, but that's not the same as reciting. Same for a call-and-repeat type thing.
 

I can think of a whole slew of people who, based on their professed values, ought to be thrilled that the president didn't do this.  So, unless it's the Christian militants who are upset, why, exactly is anyone upset?
Atheists separation of church and state folk folks in favor of religious freedom folks in favor of freedom from religion liberal "don't cram your religion down my throat" folks Hipsters Against Hypocrisy (HAH) whoever I've left out

So apparently we're supposed to be up in arms, both liberal and conservative, because the President didn't recite the Nicene Creed at George Bush's funeral.
Am I the only one who just. does. not. care?  
I wouldn't have recited it either.  Some of the statements in the Creed do not conform with what I believe as a member of the LDS Church.  In my view, to recite a creed you don't believe in, even for ceremonial purposes, is just lying. 
Maybe that's why the President didn't.  Or maybe he was just being rude.  Either way, I just can't work up any outrage over this.  Frankly, if I had to pick something to be annoyed about, it's that the Clintons' tongues didn't burst into flames when they DID recite it.
So maybe none of them believe in the Creed.  So what?  At least Trump was being honest.
I dunno.  I'm tired. 

#1 - I may have asked the individual to not do that.  I understand some managers try to tell their employees to be constantly busy and clean if nothing else, but I would probably ask them to avoid dusting stuff over my food.
#2 - I probably would not have a problem with someone who did that.  It is a tad rude and they may be able to do better but once again, they are probably trying to do as told and keep the area clean.  I've had it done to me (but not at Costco) and simply acquiesced. 

#1 - I may have asked the individual to not do that.  I understand some managers try to tell their employees to be constantly busy and clean if nothing else, but I would probably ask them to avoid dusting stuff over my food.
#2 - I probably would not have a problem with someone who did that.  It is a tad rude and they may be able to do better but once again, they are probably trying to do as told and keep the area clean.  I've had it done to me (but not at Costco) and simply acquiesced. 

The first thing to come to mind is the saying, "It's always darkest before the dawn." The first recorded version appears to be, "It is always darkest just before the day dawneth," written by Thomas Fuller in his book A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine and the Confines Thereof in 1650.
If I think of anything else, I'll be back.

Psalms 30:5.
See also Hebrews 10:35-37
Or Ether 2:24.

I agree you can teach your kids faith and talk to them. Seems to be a communication barrier here. I'll just own that and say it was poor wording on my part so we can move on.

There paragraph is set up as 1) you can teach your kids faith OR 2) talk to them.
My thoughts: you can teach your kids faith AND talk to them.  Both.  

If that's the case, then that's a particular failing in your case.  LDS doctrine very much stress that a person housed have teismony, pray, read scriptures, etc.  Even as a kid.  And yes, youre repeatedly asked about your beliefs, such as before baptism, before getting a temple recommend, plus the million informal times.
Asking questions has also been a key part of the youth teaching program for a number of years now, and with the new SS/RS/PH outlines too.
Again I feel like you're mixing up subjects here.  

Daniel and his three friends were by no means the only Jews in Babylon at this time—the political and theological cream of Jewish society was carried to Babylon before Zedekiah was installed as king, including (if memory serves) Ezekiel; and this core is the seed from which rabbinic Judaism and the Old Testament as we know it emerged.
The fact that there was no recorded mass slaughter of Babylonian Jews at the time of Darius’ decree, and the fact that Mordecai’s defiance before Haman/Ahasuerus seems atypical Jews seem to have been tolerated in Persia until Haman started stirring up trouble, and the royal household apparently didn’t even initially know that Esther was a Jew) suggests to me that post-diaspora Jews tended to keep a low profile when they could and that the open defiance exhibited by luminaries such as Daniel, Meshach, Shadrach, Abed-nego, Mordecai, and Esther was the exception rather than the rule.  

How many temples did they have?
I believe Nephi Built one and that there was one in the Land Bountiful.  We also know the King Benjamin taught at the temple and that Alma and others referred to a temple.  At any one of these times though, that would only mean they had one or two working at any specific time period.  How many others are mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
As far as the Original Question, I think it is a matter of power, individual evil, and authority.
In Daniel's case the King was not the specific aggressor.  It was advisors who were out to deal the damage, and the King ruled over them.  Daniel still risked death, and could have been killed.  In fact, Daniel WAS thrown to the Lion's Den.  It was ONLY after the miraculous saving of his life by the Lord that he was gotten out and the Law changed.  It could be that the standard punishment was to be fed to the  Lion's rather than be slain outright.
On the otherhand those who were over Alma were exceedingly hard hearted towards Alma's people themselves.  It could be that death was done on the spot or personally by them.  Their ruler himself was the aggressor and very likely to pursue the punishment no matter the cost.
I imagine in both instances, they were led by the spirit and/or revelation on what course of action was the wisest course.