Traveler

The work and glory of G-d is the bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  That requires that man have agency and agency requires a possibility of failure (opposition in all things).  We must be invested to become like G-d.  G-d is successful with all that follow him.
 
The Traveler
 
 

The sacrament must be taken by covenant and sealed by the power of the Holy Ghost to renew covenants and remit sins.  To partake is not enough.  I believe this is why many of the general authorities have recommended greater sacred attention during this ordinance.
 
The Traveler

Moses 1:39
Satan had the same last 2 questions that you pose.  His solution didn't work though...

This is a level of evidence list that I use to evaluate doctrine.
 
Level I: Scripture (the Standard Works), and Modern-Day Revelation as recorded in the Ensign from the most recent General Conference talks.
Level II: Official Proclamations, Statements, and Doctrinal Expositions from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, prior General Conference talks, and the Church Hymnal
Level III: Church Manuals written and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Level IV: Commentary by General Authorities not published by the Church, e.g. Mormon Doctrine
Level V: Commentary by non-general authority members in good standing
Level VI: Research and commentary by scholars / non-LDS members
Level VII: Online discussion groups like LDSBlogs.org - Mormon Archipelago: Gateway to the Bloggernacle
Level VIII: Research or commentary by apostate or disillusioned members
 
But to each his own.  We can pick and choose to believe what doctrine tickles our fancy.
I personally hold Joseph Smith Jr. in very high regard.  And although many of his words did not make it into our standard works, I give them particular weight.
  -  David A Bednar "That We May Always Have His Spirit to Be with Us"  April 2006 conference address

Look at it more that Plato and Aristotle are Philosophers.  AS such, their books do not establish historical events.  They reflect the culture of their society and societal views. 
We also use the Bible in a similar manner.  Just like Plato and Aristotle we would use the Bible as a book of Philosophy if we want to look at it that way.  Just like Plato and Aristotle it can be a great resource to see the culture and views of the society in which it was written.
In this, historians already use the Bible just like they would with Plato and Aristotle and don't really give it less credence in the areas we can verify.
However, many Christians want to utilize the Bible in a different manner than that.  They want to have it used as a historical record and in this regards, they want it used in a different manner than we use the philosophers in reference to history. 
What the article misleads you on is that historians already use the Bible more in regards to historical EVENTS than most of the writings of ancient philosophy.  It is where we use many of our means to guide archaeologists on their digs for Ancient Israel and the Kingdom of David and Solomon.  in this, many historians would say we already see the Bible as more validated in this regards than Philosophers, so those who claim that we don't are actually either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
However, the bible itself is, from a secular point of view, simply a regions mythology.  As any other mythology you need to separate Fact from fiction, or what can be evidence vs. myth.
As such, things such as the Book of Genesis where there is really no evidence to show it, and physical evidence seems to indicate it did not happen, are seen more as fictional myth from a secular point of view.  As such, we could technically prove that parts of the Bible are false and only myths due to evidence we have that show a contrary record (the most common normally tossed about is that there is no evidence from an archeological, geological, or any other scientific measure of a recent world wide flood).
Christians many times feel that this means historians are automatically dismissing the Bible and do not see it as authentic or reliable.  Once again, this is misleading.  If scientific records indicate something from Plato or Aristotle as being implausible, that too would be tossed out.  However, much of the writings we DO use don't try to establish a historical record, and instead are things that reflect their societies views and culture.
We have many figures we view as authentic in the Bible as they are referred to in other sources.  People such as David and Solomon and other Kings of Israel and Judah.  Ideas in relation to the Babylonians and other items, and ideas in regards to how the Church of Jerusalem worked in the Roman period and how certain things were situated are ALL things we look at historically.
One other thing to realize on WHY the Bible is not given as much significance as some of the other writings is that the Bible actually only deals with a VERY SMALL part of the world.  It simply isn't as important, historically speaking, as things that deal with areas that had a greater impact during their time period (For example, the Greeks or the Romans).  Even most Christians in the US devalue parts of the Bible more than the Philosophers, and at times they devalue parts of the Bible even MORE than historians (for example Maccabees is great for a historian but very few Christians even have it in their Bible much less read it).

On the article itself -
The problem you would run into as a Historian is that Plato and Aristotle are not being used to try to establish actual historical events.  They are seen as philosophers rather than a recorded history.  As such you can utilize devices in the writing to find historical relevance, but it does not normally establish historical events. 
When people talk about the bible as a Historical they are normally trying to establish certain things as absolute truths in history.  Rather than seeing the Bible in a similar manner as to what they see as Plato's Republic (and thus ONLY a philosophical item that reflects historical attitudes and sentiment) they see it more like a history book or historical record.  It is a cultural reference that can establish what the culture may have been like, but normally is not used as one to establish historical events on it's own. 
The Bible on the otherhand is used in many instances by Christians as trying to be the sole item to establish historical fact, sometimes against or contrary to various other items that say such facts are impossible to have occurred.
A more relevant comparison would be the records of the Norse Mythology (their religion) is taken FAR less reliably as a historical record than the Bible, and they typically date from a far sooner period in many instances. 
If one is going to compare documents authenticity from a scholarly secular historical point of view, it probably is best to compare like to like documents rather than apples and oranges.
 
I should note, that historians DO use the Bible as a historical document in some cases, but not as much as some Christians would want them to.  In addition, some of the more incredible items (read miracles and supernatural items) are normally taken as literally as they would any other mythological text from a civilization.  This is NOT to say that historians may believe otherwise in regards to FAITH, but there are some standards that are there in order to set what can or cannot be acceptable in regards to historical events as a secular scholarship would demand.

Latter-day Yammering
Church Chat
Gathering the Saints
 

I am very open to helping those with mental issues - I am not sure that help looks like - the idea that warm fuzzes is always more helpful than tough love and straight talk seems strange to me.  To be honest I do not think there is a single category for a helpful attitude.  I know I am not much help and am very conflicted - mostly I step away and support anyone that has patients.   Back in the day when there were mental institutions that those with problems were committed - I would visit and try to make connections - but I was told I only saw a small part of the problem.  Sometime I tend to think the experts are only seeing a small part of the problem as well.  I am not sure we have made that much progress with out science or religious enlightenment in our modern era with those with mental issues.
 
The Traveler

I am very open to helping those with mental issues - I am not sure that help looks like - the idea that warm fuzzes is always more helpful than tough love and straight talk seems strange to me.  To be honest I do not think there is a single category for a helpful attitude.  I know I am not much help and am very conflicted - mostly I step away and support anyone that has patients.   Back in the day when there were mental institutions that those with problems were committed - I would visit and try to make connections - but I was told I only saw a small part of the problem.  Sometime I tend to think the experts are only seeing a small part of the problem as well.  I am not sure we have made that much progress with out science or religious enlightenment in our modern era with those with mental issues.
 
The Traveler

There are times and places that the Baptists and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get along very well.   I did a lot of work for DuPont at their now closed facility on land that is now the DuPont forest in  NC - very beautiful place (one of my favorite in the world).  At the time the plant manager was Baptist and at my first blush there was prejudice (on both sides). The area was hard hit economically and the local bishop worked with the Baptists to help many desperate families.  During this same time I was key in automating the facility and the plant director and I became very close.  So close that when DuPont decided to sell the facility the plant manager put together an employee buyout and I was listed as one of the critical board members to validate the buyout. 
BTW the US trade commission nixed the buyout because it would have been a monopoly which is sort-of true but a flawed excuse.   The sale was okay-ed to a Germany company that took the technology to Germany and closed the plant a week after the buy; some 300 well paid employees lost their lively hood causing more economic problems in the area.  Bill Clinton was president - I do not know how much he was involved but it was a trade and business blunder; 100% government mistake that did not help anyone doing business in the US and I suspect that someone in the Clinton administration profited that should not have.
Back to the Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get along - there were many friends and joint activities - it is the best I have seen in corporation between rival religions.  I was aware of some switching of "sides" (both ways) but It was about equal and very few.  I cannot speak for those that became Baptists but for the Baptist that become members - they were fantastic family solid members.  I would welcome any such to our fold. 
 
The Traveler

"11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I'm curious what you mean by this. For example, I respect his choice to remain a Baptist despite believing in the Book of Mormon the same as I respect his choice to wear leather chaps to bed or drink cheap beer or listen to Conway Twitty eight-tracks or call his wife "Honey Buns". Those things are his choice, and he gets to make those choices. Okay by me.
I also respect my neighbor's choice to engage in (consensual) fornication with his girlfriend, smoke cigarettes, and tell filthy jokes to his like-minded friends. I do not approve of such choices, however, so I would not say that I "100% respect" those choices. I simply acknowledge them as choices that he has the right to make, however wrong they might be.
In the case of the Baptist minister, we have a clearly bad choice being made: By the minister's own declaration, he has received a divine testimony of the word of God as brought forth through Joseph Smith. Yet he refuses to follow the path clearly outlined in that book of which he has gained testimony. Instead of uniting himself with the Saints of God and treading the path as a brother, he stands outside, deceiving himself that he is somehow taking a higher or nobler stance by retaining his old affiliations and, at least to some extent, beliefs instead of following Christ's example. I do not condemn him for this choice; that is not my place. But I recognize the choice as being wrong, and in that sense, I don't respect it at all.
So when you say that you "100% respect his choice to remain Baptist", do you mean the first type of respect described above or the second?

Often I will classify answers to Gospel question into two categories.    The first category I call the Sunday School Class answer.  This is the answer suitable for everyone from age 5 to 105, investigator or seasoned gospel scholar and struggling  with testimony or died in the wool never waver believer.  When I was growing up as a youth - I seldom paid much attention in class so whenever a church teacher would ask me a question - I would answer, "Because Jesus is the Christ".  Strangely - I was never completely wrong with that answer.  As I have gotten older and wiser I have become amazed at the brilliance of that answer.  In a gospel class if the answer to any question does not included somewhere that Jesus is the Christ - then likely whatever else most want the answer to be really does not actually matter.
The next category of answers I will call the motivation answer.  In essence this answer is intended to generate more questions and convince the person asking the question - or answering the question with this is that one and only answer according to scripture and the prophets - that they need to study more, be more humble and seek the spirit.  I believe one of the most difficult saint to deal with in any church calling is the one that shows up thinking they know all the answers and refuse to hear anything else or listen to anything, anyone else has to say - unless it validates their answer.  Mostly I believe I have failed if my answer has not convinced the listener that the answer is not so easy that they do not need to follow the recommendation of Jesus that suggest that we must knock, seek and ask in our journey to learn gospel truths and that G-d will reveal line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  The greatest heresy of all - is thinking you know the answer.
 
The Traveler

I do not think so - we believe in law and abiding by the law.  Perhaps you are confusing agency with free will.
 
The Traveler

Not exactly true - most (like 99.9% of all) revelation is a call to repentance.  If you are looking for guidance from G-d; the first step of divine guidance from Christ is to repent.  This revelation is given to all - especially the unworthy.  The first test of faith is repentance.   If you think you are being inspired or hope to be inspired to do something other than to begin with repentance - that inspiration and hope is not coming from a holy source but rather a force that intends to entrap you, take away your agency and make you a captive slave.  The only way to escape captivity is by discipline that begins with repentance.
 
The Traveler

When I was growing up - my protectors were my father and my mother (also my siblings).  If I ever needed help or safety, I knew I could count on family.  I also experienced that my family were my greatest critic.  I never worried much about my bishop, interviews with my bishop were as it seems a formality.  Dealing with my father and mother was another matter - I was unable to hide anything from them.  My earthly parents are the best example of my heavenly parents - I was often reproved (as a youth it seemed daily).  I thought I never measured up to what was expected but I never doubted the love of my parents - ever.  
I had a bishop that had a careless son that damaged our family car.  My father paid for all the damage - to both cars.  At the time I did not understand and resented my bishop for not being responsible.  I was reproved severely by my father for comments I made about this issue.  Now I wish I was more like my father.
I realize that not every family has parents like mine - for some the best examples they have are their bishops.  I wish that was not the case.  But when it is the case - I pray earnestly for such bishops - and thank G-d I am not one of them.  There is not a bishop or leader in the church that is doing a poor enough job that I want dearly to replace them.
 
The Traveler

(I know it's been a while but I was having Mormonhub withdrawals, love you guys!)
I obviously can't speak for this Baptist minister, but I can speak as an Evangelical who has read the Book of Mormon. When Evangelicals read the Book of Mormon, they read it from an Evangelical perspective and background, so they don't understand the theological differences. For example, in Alma 11:44 Amulek tells Zeezrom:
" but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."
Evangelicals read this as the trinity even though that is obviously not what it means. My point is not to babble about the Trinity, but simply show that Evangelicals read The Book of Mormon incorrectly. 
*Again, I can't speak definitively for Dr. Lynn Ridenhour, and I don't mean to.

Many time I have witnessed good righteous "members" fall away.  I have also witnessed many arch enemies have a a change of heart and be baptized.  In most all cases those that fall away have encountered what they thought was bitterness and rejection from one, some or more of the saints.  Interestingly in most all cases of those that turn their hearts from being bitter enemies to join with us have encountered compassionate caring kindness from one, some or more of the saints.
As a youth there were about 1 million members of the Church.  It seamed that everyone that was not a member in good standing was somehow our feared enemy.  Now, it seems that I can find support and kindness from those that in my youth were bitter enemies and sometimes those I thought were loving friends, to be, for lack of a better reference, wolves in sheep clothing.  In short I have learned that not everyone that praises me is my friend and not everyone that criticizes me is my enemy.  I am also convinced that if ever a hand of friendship should be extended first - it ought to be extended first (most certainly be) by a Saint of G-d.
 
The Traveler

There could be a various number of things that could be inconvenient.  IN his defense for example...if he is a member of the military if he is deployed or TDY to locations unknown where there is no available Bishop, he cannot go to see a Bishop face to face without breaking his oath, the law, and his duty.  To do so would make him AWOL.
My advice is to repent as much as one can while in their situation.  Pray for forgiveness.  Read the Book of Mormon daily and pray daily.  When possible, again, seek out a Bishop.

To expand on that thought in a meaningful (I hope) way:
In 1931, 25-year-old Kurt Gödel published a couple of papers that turned the mathematical (and philosophical) world on its ear, from which position neither has ever fully recovered. It came along about the time quantum mechanics was being developed, and though it appears to be unrelated, was strangely similar in a sort of philosophical way. Just as quantum mechanics showed that the universe is not at all what we thought, Gödel's so-called "Incompleteness Theorem" showed that mathematics was nothing like the firm logical structure people had always thought.
Gödel showed that any "recursive axiomatic" number system sufficiently complex to do anything useful with, such as describing the arithmetic of natural numbers, will always -- ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- have true and valid propositions which cannot be proven from the system's own axioms. This is an absolutely jaw-dropping proof. To call it "counterintuitive" would be like watching a lead ball "fall" upward and saying, "Huh. Lookie thar." It overturned some of the most basic and foundational ideas in mathematics.
Obviously, this is strictly mathematical proposition, but there is no good reason to suppose it does not apply to the systems described by the mathematics being used -- systems like languages, for example.
Human languages are all inherently messy, redundant, and illogical from the outside. Right around the time of the Restoration, there had been, were, and would continue to be major efforts to construct a "perfect" artificial language. (Brigham Young's Deseret Alphabet was, in reality, a manifestation of this ideal of developing the "perfect" language, though it was only a phonetic system for English as spoken by the Latter-day Saints.) I put "perfect" in quotation marks because what constitutes "perfection" varies widely, and all such ideas turn out to be flawed.
For example, one common idea is that every word will have exactly one meaning -- what linguists today might describe as the ultimate analytic language. One word per meaning, one meaning per word. Simple.
...except it is the opposite of simple. The average adult native English speaker has a vocabulary of 12,000 to 20,000 words, depending on which source you want to believe. (That's their "active vocabulary", meaning words they can use. Their "passive vocabulary" includes words they recognize in context but don't use, and might be as much as double that number.) Highly educated people might have an active vocabulary of, say, 40,000 words. It's hard to believe that there are many, or any, people with an active vocabulary of 100,000 words. Yet you would probably need at least that size of vocabulary for simple everyday speech if you spoke a purely analytic language, and much larger if you dealt with a complex abstract area like mathematics, philosophy, or religion.
This whole discussion also ignores the immense complexity of deciding what constitutes a "new idea". Does an animal's eating use the same word as a human's eating? (Not in German, it doesn't.) If not, does a frog's eating use the same word as an elephant's? Does a dalmation's eating use the same word as a Great Dane's? Does my eating use the same word as yours? We are completely different beings, after all. Where do you draw the lines in separating out the boundaries of word meanings? It's a fool's errand.
God himself constantly reuses terms to teach us things we can't quite grasp. He uses puns, allegories, direct comparisons, and assignment of meaning. I see no reason to believe that the verbal language God speaks (assuming that can be narrowed down to such) abandons all such constructs. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would incorporate and perfect such things.
Just some musings for your entertainment. I've given this some consideration through the years, but I don't pretend to have plowed any new ground. I'm open to feedback or further thoughts.

A moving arm signal is a semaphore. A smash board is meant to get an engineers attention when he overruns a signal in a station. 
 
Grade crossing arm comes to mind on the other  
 
AFAIK, English has more words than any other language. Of course, not everything is covered. 

The purpose of Sunday School/Auxiliary meetings is to strengthen faith and testimony.  Questions and answers to questions, therefore, will have to serve that purpose.

I'm the kind of person that likes to ask really difficult questions.  However, I deliberately choose not to ask such questions in classes at church; mostly because I don't want to embarrass of frustrate a teacher who may not have ever considered such a question, or isn't prepared to answer it.
When I'm teaching a class, however, I welcome and sometimes even instigate those hard questions. 
There are times, however, where I sometimes feel a difficult question will not benefit the development or progression of the class; will take longer to fully answer than we have time to in class; or the complexity of the answer is such that a private conversation after class would be more beneficial.  In these cases, I say that I won't answer the question in class, but if anyone wants to discuss if after class, I am happy to do so then.
Most importantly, I always try to leave the impression that I'm willing to talk about anything, just maybe not right now.

So many people seem to forget the accountability part of agency. 
Agency is practically the opposite of anarchy. 

I do not think so - we believe in law and abiding by the law.  Perhaps you are confusing agency with free will.
 
The Traveler