Ookla

Oh, that's excellent.

If I understand correctly, I think Jesus didn't actually appear in the Americas until about a year later. If you read carefully in 3 Nephi 7-11, it looks like all the thunderings and lightnings and such that occurred at the time of Jesus' death in Israel was happening at the end of the thirty-third year after the sign in the heavens indicating Jesus' birth (as we'd expect given the timeline in the New Testament). However, though the Nephites did hear Jesus' voice a few times in the first few days afterward, Jesus didn't actually appear to them until the end of the thirty-fourth year. So that time crunch isn't an issue, because Jesus only spoke to the Nephites in those three days, and then went and finished up with the Apostles in Israel, and then a year later came back to show Himself to the Nephites.

YKYAN when you regularly use D&D terms in relation to everyday life--eg. "I really failed my Charisma check there."

Well said!

Yes. You can read about some of the consequences of those mistakes in the book of Doctrine and Covenants. While your argument against later-found books works well enough against the Doctrine and Covenants (which members of my church believe to be revelation from God to His prophet in modern times), I would recommend doing more research into what has been found in the way of archaeological evidence that seems to support the narrative in the Book of Mormon (and also to read the Book of Mormon so you can compare what's inside it to that evidence yourself). There have been a great deal of discoveries in the Mesoamerican region that seem to support the idea that the stories in the Book of Mormonactually happened--not to mention evidences within the book's language itself, including perfect and near-percet chiasmus, among other things, that Joseph Smith would not have been able to come up with out of his own head with the knowledge and education he had at the time of publishing the Book of Mormon. I would say that watching the "Journey of Faith" documentary series would be a good place to start in that particular endeavor, again with the caveat that actually reading the Book of Mormon, if you haven't yet, would give you the knowledge you'd need to really understand the arguments the archaeologists and liguists and such in that documentary are making. When it comes to the Pearl of Great Price, I don't know of any direct evidence to support it (though I'm no expert), aside from the existing Bible, and for me it's a matter of, "If I believe the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, it's not a huge stretch to believe the Pearl of Great Price was translated that way too." Also, a question for my own curiosity: Do you believe it possible to receive revelation or for there to be living prophets in the modern day? Why or why not?

Ah, friend. That's rough. Wishing you all the best.

I agree with @AquaRegia here--I believe a lot of historical art was intended to invoke emotion, as a lot of it has religious iconography and that was important and moving to a lot of people back then. Even though modern tastes are different, the intent to evoke emotion was still there at the time of its creation (to my knowledge) and it still had an impact on the people it was created for. And speaking of, Aqua, I really like your definition!

While I was still doing Irish dance, I felt that HARD (Also, hi, I'm getting assessed for autism and ADHD through school... sometime in the next month-ish. So we'll see how that comes out!). I learned dances really slowly, and only by having someone else walk me through the steps slowly about 7-8 times, and I eventually reached the point where no one had the time to do that for me (which is why I quit). So happy to find that this thread is a thing!

Accurate! Hoid will mock you; Yumi will just correct your technique.

I think art is any thing that has been created with love, thought, and care, by a person who wants to bring beauty and goodness into the world. But I also think art is a process, not just a product--it's as much, if not more, about how we develop as we create our art as it is about what we are actually creating. It's about the change it brings about within us as we experience it, both in the creation and the appreciation of it. And the beauty of it, in my opinion, is that because every person's experience of art is subjective, there can be a piece of art out there that speaks to every person--especially if we all engage in its creation. Personally, I think that if every person focused on bringing that beauty and goodness into the world rather than trying to "win" or "get ahead", the vast majority of the conflicts and contentions on this earth would disappear. So... I guess the shortest way to put it is that art is anything that makes the world a better place by bringing more light and beauty and goodness to it.

I guess that depends on how you're used to the word retribution being used. To me, Retribution is kinda like Justice--but in a more vengeful, hateful kind of way. I did a quick dictionary search and one of the definitions was punishment, which seems fitting enough. So at least for me, calling it Retribution works just fine, but if you're working off a differently-nuanced head-definition, then it might not be the best Shard-name for how your brain works.

I'd say Kaladin. Heraldic power is no joke, and Nomad's Dawnshard is doing all it can to keep him from fighting. The one advantage I think Nomad has is that the restriction to his fighting abilities has forced him to get more creative with how he does things, but regardless, if he doesn't siphon off the Investiture blocking him from fighting, he's a sitting duck. Plus, Kaladin is a 5th-oath Radiant as well as a Herald, and we still don't know what that last power boost is.