Dravin

Okay, then read the section of Preach My Gospel on the Plan of Salvation, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Pay attention to the associated scriptures. If you don't know where your hard copy is, it is available online: Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary ServiceÂ

If you served a mission you should be able to answer that last question yourself. What would you have told an investigator who asked that question?

For the record I was just pointing out what I felt JAG was missing, not making an argument either way for children and smart phones.

No, but quite a few purchases for kids aren't limited by a prerequisite need or pressing reason. Put another way, in most circumstances, they're toys not needed tools for survival.

Omnipresence isn't about ability, it's about actuality. Something that is omnipresent is everywhere simultaneously, if they aren't everywhere simultaneously then they aren't omnipresent. It doesn't matter if that's because they can't or because they won't. If there is somewhere they are not then they aren't omnipresent. It sounds like you are saying the Father and the Son aren't present in mortal beings while they are in their fallen mortal state (for example, myself). If the Father and Son aren't present in me then that is somewhere they are not present and therefore they are not omnipresent. For them to be omnipresent they have to be present in me, a mortal being in his fallen mortal state, in some capacity at this very moment.

Blue jeans, solid color t-shirt, solid color hoodie, and hat (either ball-cap or sunhat depending).

We do in a sense, or at least I do, but we tend to attach difference senses to the terms. Omnipotence - I tend to parse this as the power to do all things that are possible. The concept of omnipotence that means God can do anything conceivable or inconceivable runs into issues with things like Alma 11:37 or Titus 1:2. Omniscient - I believe this is the case. Indeed, the Topical Guide has an entry concerning this characteristic of God - God, Omniscience of . Omnipresent - No, based on D&C 130:22. Unless one means God in the sense of the Godhead and then I suppose one could argue for it. Or one could argue for it based on that omnipresence being represented by the light of Christ or his Spirit (or other possibilities not mentioned). Which brings up a fundamental point, God is not a particularly precise term. One can ask if God died on the cross in Judea ~2,000 years ago, and one can answer both yes and no. God the Father did not die on the cross, Jesus who is also God did. Likewise, what exactly one means by omnipresence can be its own discussion. One could go pretty deep and nuanced when considering the questions, their answers, and their implications. All-Holy: Yes. This one is actually the most straight forward one.

More like a Grape Jelly and Juicery.

I'll live on the edge of town so I have room for my grape vines.

In the line of LDS politicians we have Reed Smoot, particularly in regards to the Smoot Hearings. Not exactly the most current, but worth a mention.

Hiking, biking, and swimming.

Hmm, my experience remains what it is despite this.

Nothing.

Honestly a lot of evolution vs. creation debates are more accurately phrased as creation vs. abiogensis. Not all of them of course, but there tends to be a lot of conflation in such discussions (on both sides).

Endowed - They have partaken of the Endowment ordinance in the temple. Temple Recommend - They hold a temple recommend. Temple Worthy - They are worthy to hold a temple recommend. There is a distinction to be made between the three if one really wants to do so but if these are dating site biographies then they are probably all trying to communicate the same basic idea. Namely that said individuals can be sealed in the temple if the relationship goes that far.

Some thoughts: 1) Facebook posts aren't necessarily informed. So he may not have bothered to read the posts claiming (truthfully) there is a legal travel restriction, or may not think you are correct, particularly if he's working off outdated information, lives in a nearby area where the travel restriction isn't in effect, or he didn't bother to confirm it. 2) I don't know your ward boundaries, but it's possible not everyone in the ward lives under the same travel restriction (for instance if the ward boundaries cross municipal or county boundaries). If where he lives there is not a travel restriction and his streets are well maintained he may be thinking his situation covers the entire ward, or enough of the ward to still make meetings worthwhile on Sunday. We kinda have the opposite situation today, roads aren't bad everywhere in the ward boundaries but enough of the ward has bad roads that Church was canceled. In short there may be miscommunication or misunderstanding rather than the Bishop going, "It is against the law for people to travel to Church but I'm going to tell them to travel anyway."

The first thing that comes to mind is them being mobbed and slowed down when they have places they need to go. In my experience at the end of Stake Conferences or Firesides they request people remain seated while the GA is essentially escorted quickly out to prevent the issue.

It depends. The home phone doesn't have caller ID, so all calls are from unrecognized numbers. If I'm expecting a call I'll answer, otherwise I let the answering machine screen my calls. If I'm near the answering machine, it plays the message as it is recording, I'll listen in at the start to see if it is someone I know or a message I'm interested in taking and pick up before they finish with their message. With a cell phone since I can see the phone number I can distinguish numbers. I mostly go by if I'm expecting a call from what might be an unrecognized number, if I'm not expecting such a call I'll tend to let it go to voice mail. Concerning call backs, I'll call back provided: You actually leave a message, unless you are family I'm not going to call you back just because you are on my missed calls list. The nature of the message needs a call back. If it's my home phone you better have left a call back number, or enough information for me to easily find it. The bank can get away with saying, "This is Bob from Chase calling concerning a fraud alert." Unless I recognize your voice (and know your name) you won't be able to get away with, "Hey, this is John. I need to coordinate our schedules." If it is my cell phone, you need to identify yourself even if a number isn't as necessary. If you aren't in my contacts list then I'll have no clue who you are and that greatly diminishes the chances of a callback even with a message.

Really, the question isn't if such things can be compared. After all, I can be compared to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler; we're male. The question is if the comparison is relevant/meaningful to a point being made.

It's worth noting that according to the LDS.org reference ( Book of Mormon Translation ) that some accounts do have Joseph Smith studying the plates themselves during the translation process. I don't know the subject well enough to know which specific accounts that is referring to (or to grade it on reliability) but if you have an account of Joseph Smith studying the plates during translation then a painting based on such an account introducing a sheet (considering what we know about the restrictions concerning showing the plates to people) isn't some egregious distortion of the account (and for all I know the accounts include it). Which highlights one of the things about history, while we like to think of history as some giant collection of facts of what we know all laid out in a row, history is a compilation of multiple sources that are synthesized according to metrics such as consistency, perceived reliability, focus, and even plausibility. History isn't a single narrative, it's a cacophony of sources. When you convert history from that cacophony into a narrative it is a lossy process. Narratives are generally how history is handled at an introductory level though because the narratives are easier to understand than the cacophony.

Here is the thing, the Church will always leave out details. Limited time, limited space, and limited focus will ensure this will be the case. If not about detail X then about detail Y. This does not mean (I am not attributing these positions to you): 1) It's a nefarious happening meant to sucker people in. 2) That said detail is being hidden by the Church. 3) That said detail needs to be emphasized in the curricula of the Church. For what it's worth I can understand the idea that, "Maybe a new picture depicting the use of a seer stone and a hat could be commissioned." Yeah, sure. I don't have any issue with that (others might, but I don't), but most people are addressing the three points above.

I think this, fundamentally, is the big disconnect. I don't rely on the Church curricula to teach me the nuances of Church History. I rely on them to teach me the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Church History does come up, but in a very introductory way designed to highlight a gospel principle or lesson. It simply isn't the point of such lessons to give a nuanced treatment of Church History.

Guess what else was referenced in this thread? Ensign January 2013.

I was unaware that 2013 was more than 10 years ago. Man, time flies.

While not concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon there is also: Reference to the use of a seer stone to receive revelation: Orson Pratt's Call to Serve Reference to Martin Harris swapping out the seer stone to see if Joseph would notice: The Contributions of Martin Harris It is interesting to note the domain: Church History