Dravin

Eh, found another Ensign article that mentions seer stone: “By the Gift and Power of God†- Ensign Jan. 1997 - ensign Curse the Church for hiding things in it's official publications!

The scriptures are fallible. Indeed, the scriptures themselves make concession for the fallibility of those who wrote them. To wit:

I tend to agree. I view Gospel Doctrine as Gospel Topics from Church History and Doctrine and Covenants 101 rather than Church History 315 that some seem to consider it. Would throwing in random historical curios destroy the class? Most likely not, but the teaching of Church History really (though it covers it in an introductory fashion) isn't what the class is about, it is about teaching the Gospel through Church History and Doctrine and Covenants. If we're considering the topic more broadly for, "The Church should teach this." You've got seer stones mentioned in a 2013 Ensign Article (Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God - Ensign Jan. 2013 - ensign ) and the link from LDS.org ( Book of Mormon Translation ) discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon mentions both a seer stone and the use of the hat*. While I suppose the Church isn't making the information a priority, it is hardly hiding it. *It's always funny to me that people seem to get hung up on the hat as if it's significant.

Is this the talk to which you are referring? A Treasured Testament - Ensign July 1993 - ensign We also have the following referencing both the seer stone and the hat: Book of Mormon Translation

I wonder if the decision to make multiple videos, if JAG is correct then 3 of them, has anything to do with helping members focus through variety.

No, it means that the physician who performs the physical's opinion is not the final word on fitness to serve a full-time mission. Which makes sense, the physician who performs the physical does not necessarily understand the full rigors and involvement in the mission field nor are they tasked with providing medical support and care for the missionary when they are in the field. It means that the ultimate determination of fitness is being made by those who will be responsible for missionaries in the field, which is perfectly sensible and far from being 'something wrong'.

It should be noted that the Church has doctors reviewing the medical aspects of applications. When I applied I had an issue with the TB test (I think it ended up being a transcription error on the doctor who gave me the physical's part) and there was back and forth between the doctor at the missionary department and the physician who signed off on the paperwork. So at least in my case I had physicians on both ends discussing my application issues and they accepted my physicians explanation and assurance. Yep, though mental health issues are less likely to be caught during the standard required physical compared to something like arrhythmia (or obesity*) and thus rely more on self-reporting and proper previous diagnosis. *It's worth noting that medical obesity starts at a BMI of 30, the cut off is 37.

It's also worth mentioning that the Church employs doctors of their own. They aren't chucking darts at a board marked, "Random reasons to deny applications for full-time missionary service." And really: 1) If it is a legitimate psychological issue, legitimate psychological issues can result in being excused form full-time missionary service. 2) If it is a legitimate medical issue, legitimate medical issues can result in being excused from full-time missionary service. The idea that if those with a BMI greater than 37 are excused from full-time missionary service it must mean people are viewing it as a willpower issue of people who aren't even trying is a non-starter. The First Presidency Statement is quite applicable: Source: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Missionary Health Preparation Then they should serve the Lord. The idea that a full-time mission is the only way one can serve the Lord is a gross error. The First Presidency statement above excuses individuals from full-time missionary service, not from serving the Lord.

Should be easy to confirm or debunk though, what state does she live in? Including there being exceptions to everything?

Repent and talk to your Bishop. Also, study and ponder upon Preach My Gospel Lessons 2 and 3, don't skip the scripture references associated with the principles and topic covered therein.

The issue with weight, and health, has to do with the physical stress of serving. As far as someone being disabled it'd depend on the exact disability. Have you looked into local part-time missions? Usually you hear about older missionaries doing such but I have heard of younger missionaries taking that option because their situation does not allow a full time missionary opportunity. I'd have him talk to his Bishop about the possibility of such options.

Indeed, we're promised blessings for paying tithing (3 Ne 24:10) but it isn't specified that those blessings will take the form of "get more money". Could those blessings take that form? Sure. Are they promised to take that form? No.

Apparently the creator of the chart received that question enough that he decided to put up an explanation for why he drew it that way: IS THE FINAL JUDGMENT BEFORE P.S. I am neither disagreeing or agreeing with his reasoning.

I've just seen way too much children's entertainment in general, and Disney's productions (particularly direct to video or from their channels) in particular, to see the inclusion of extraneous characters in the hopes of increasing profits at the expense of tight plotting to be below the standards of the children's entertainment industry in general or Disney in particular. Maybe I am too cynical to see it, because from my perspective Disney's effort is to make money, which they accomplish by telling stories (among other things).

I don't see how a decision by Disney of, "Lets squeeze in a character with marketing potential even if they aren't critical to the plot." is Disney being cynical. Can someone explain it to me? Disney is a for profit company, such thinking strikes me as unsurprising and pretty much within the norms of a company marketing a movie towards children. Also, thinking that children may not be as concerned with plot coherency and flow as they will be with the 'cuteness' of characters doesn't strike me as a distrust of humanity or it's motives, anymore so than an action movie putting in extraneous explosions does. Maybe I'm just too cynical to see it as cynicism?

For the record, I see a distinction to be made between being accepting and loving of someone who commits sin and condoning sin. Obviously the line between those two is a matter of much heated debate (and even what each side of that blurry line means in practical terms), but I don't think loving and accepting sinners puts us at odds with God's will.

I'm a middle child, they quite rather missed the mark with their profile.

I assume this is rhetorical flourish rather than meant honestly? If meant honestly it has implications that basically boil down to you putting your will ahead of God's and essentially wearing it like a badge of honor.

I find myself watching more YouTube than I really should.

It doesn't follow that because the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy that all changing of ordinances leads to apostasy. For example, rain can contribute to flooding, that does not mean that all rain leads to flooding. The idea that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy and that the Lord's authorized servants are empowered to make (or communicate) adjustments to ordinances in line with the will of the Lord are not at odds.

And if one thinks of symbolism in terms of language then changes become less, "They changed the unchangeable!" and more, "They translated the ordinance into another language." They being those authorized by the Lord to do so. Revelation. The same source that lets us know that the ordinances as they currently are have integrity and are efficacious.

Did you mean deference instead of defiance Church? Looks like you might be a victim of auto correct/spell check.

Well, lets take a look through the posts that profess that LDS do not believe in a Heavenly Mother. <Starts scanning the thread> We have Andy saying he's not sure he believes it but he's working on it. We have several posts professing a belief in Heavenly Mother or that her existence is logical. It's hard to call Andy saying he's unsure to be a consensus that LDS do not believe in a Heavenly Mother. We do have Estradling saying her existence isn't canonized but that isn't a statement that LDS folk don't believe in her. Even if we do take those two posts to be that LDS folk do not believe in Heavenly Mother its hard to call that a consensus. No, not really. I did read the thread rather quickly so I'm open to having this implied consensus that LDS folk do not believe in a Heavenly Mother pointed out to me.

Did you miss the multiple recommendations to go talk with your Bishop concerning the matter?

The Crucible, twas sometime this last November.