MrShorty

In another thread there was a post about the necessity of each member of the Godhead.  In it, there was a thought that all three were needed as the task each had to do would not be able to be accomplished (necessarily) by the others.  In this, someone asked if this means that they are suggesting that the power of the Father in the trio is limited. 
That's a good question. 
In the Bible it never says that The Father or the Son are Omnipotent (and it does not say they are Omniscient or Omnipresent either). 
It does state that they are Almighty.  What does this mean?  Does it mean or imply that they are Omnipotent?
Many times it comes from the Term El Shaddai...which when they translated it into Greek was Almighty...but that word doesn't mean Almighty in hebrew.
It means the Breasted one, or could also mean the Mountain or the Sufficient one. 
Other verses carry the implication that he has great power, that he is able to do things because HE IS (or I...or I AM).  He is power.  It can also mean that he is the mightiest of them all, but not necessarily Omnipotent.
We know as a fact that he actually has chosen to limit himself in his power and what he can do.  He has given us our free agency, which in turn means that he does use his power to control what we choose.  We have the freedom to choose for ourselves. 
Thus the old question, could he make a rock he could not lift...and thereby making it so he was no longer Omnipotent?  The answer could be...yes...he chooses to limit his Omnipotency in order to allow certain things to be able to happen (like us being given the freedom to choose for ourselves and make our own choice). 
It could also be, if we read the King Follet discourse and believe in it, that though he is the Mightiest of them all as far as we are concerned, he also has a Father and rules which he also must obey or pay heed to.  Thus, he also has laws and rules which let him do things, and perhaps also limit what he might be able to do.
For example, we read that he does not allow any with any stain of sin into his presence.  This is something he does not allow.  This is a limitation on him, then, that would require someone who CAN have those who have sinned be recognized and reconciled before him, so that they can be cleansed and be presented before the Father in a sinless state.  This would be the Savior's role to take upon him our sins.  The Holy Ghost also has a role in this and also helping us and teaching us (as well as comfort).
So, I suppose it's a good question...is the Father Omnipotent?  Is that any different than Almighty?  Does it really matter as far as we are concerned?

Yep, from the "learning how to be married" crowd, this is what I've learned about the word "sorry":
Sorry 1: Oooh - I said/did something quite wrong and it had a negative impact.  I'm truly remorseful, regretful, apologetic, and sorry.  Consider this the first step of my overall repentance process where I promise to rid myself of whatever problematic beliefs or thoughts or character defects that had me say/do something so insensitive in the first place.  (Excellent choice whenever it's genuine.  You don't have to ham it up that much to mean it.)
Sorry 2: Oooh - I didn't mean to hurt you.  You misunderstood me.  I apologize, I could have said/did that in a different way.  My intentions are good, just the execution was bad. Can I clarify or try again?  (Good for anyone who wants to follow the 2nd great commandment, but you think you're right.)
Sorry 3: Oooh - that came back to bite me.  That didn't get the reaction I wanted at all.  I'm sorry I ended up on the receiving end of negative blowback for my words/actions.  I am experiencing discomfort and want it to stop, so I'll say I'm sorry so you'll stop being the cause of my discomfort.  (Popular with all narcissists, people who have no empathy, and people lacking in self-esteem.  Also occasionally popular with most of us on occasion.)
Sorry 4: Yeah, sorry a [insert insult or negative judgment here] like you got offended.  What a jerk you must be, to get offended by what I just said/did.  Your reaction says an awful lot about you, and nothing about me.   (A great way to argue with people when you're not feeling like following the 2nd great commandment, or you've got a passive-aggressive personality style, or HR is forcing you to apologize or get fired but you don't care either way.  This was Justin Timberlake's apology after ripping off Janet Jackson's top and exposing her breast on national television during that superbowl halftime show.)
Unless you know what definition the person is using, then you don't know what they're saying.  And people also might be trying to convey one of those, but they don't really mean it.  It can be hard to judge.  Mel Gibson, after going on a drunken driving binge complete with a massive rant about how Jews are the problem, did the best version of definition #1 I've seen in hollywood.  But I don't know if he meant it or not.)

On the whole, people were very excited and happy about it. I was told by a sister who was a missionary in the US South in 1978 that many Southern members were unhappy about it. Don't know if that was a widespread feeling in the South or just in her area, or perhaps just her perception.

You can Google Darius Gray for more details on his experience and reaction, and his collection of reactions from other Black members. But here's an intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Gray

Speaking of speculative speculations... I recently came across a new one (at least to me). It was in a youtube video put out by some seminary teacher or similar grass roots CES person. I doubt I could find it again (you are welcome to search if you want). In a nutshell, this theory alleges that this prophecy is fulfilled by Patriarch Eldred G. Smith, the last Smith (and, allegedly, a descendent of Abel) to hold the position of church-wide patriarch. The theory claims that, when the church decided to discontinue the position of church patriarch in '79, that was the point when Abel's descendants had fully received their portion of priesthood and so the curse on Cain's descendants could be lifted. As noted in the church essay, the church has disavowed (whatever that really means) the theories proffered to justify the ban -- including theories based on ancient Biblical lineages -- but these theories persist.
I think I've said before that perhaps the most interesting part of the history of the priesthood and temple ban is what it shows us about how the church receives revelation. In this vein, I find Elder Petersen's '54 talk to religion teachers (available from Fair, if interested) an interesting data point. In this talk, Elder Petersen expresses the belief that any of these "prophecies" about the removal of the curse were pure speculation unsupported by scripture. A quarter century before the lifting of the ban, one of the apostles who would live to see it seemed skeptical that the ban could ever be lifted, based on his understanding of scripture and these alleged "prophecies." Clearly something changed in that quarter century, and I'm unaware of anything that details how Elder Petersen's opinions changed, but Ed Kimball's history (focused on Pres. Kimball) provides insights into when and how his views might have changed. Whatever conclusions and speculations there are about the priesthood and temple ban, I find it interesting that somewhere in the process of revelation to the church is a process where an apostle can be skeptical of "prophecies" given by "early brethren" to later change and be part of fulfilling those same prophecies he was so skeptical about years earlier.

No matter how we try to spin it, it’s obvious the church has drastically changed from the prior stance. I vaguely remember last year* when Brad Wilcox got himself in hot water for saying something racially “questionable”. The church made him issue an apology several times! 

*my bad, it was 2022. 
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_R._Wilcox

We are going to find many quotes on this topic. I take the living prophets’ disavowal and lack of acceptance a solid form of doctrine.
The Lord’s servants often fall short of some people’s expectations on these and other points. That doesn’t man those expectations are correct, or correct for now. Perceived ambiguity can drive us to become as a little child as the Book of Mormon teaches in several places ("submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."). It can help us understand the Book or Mormon’s counsel to do all things in wisdom and in order, and to be charitable toward our prophets’ weakness. Some wonderful godly traits can be developed within us in the perceived, so-called “absence of official doctrine.”
 
ETA: I was just reading in John 7 that many people in Jesus' day insisted He was not the Messiah because they assumed (incorrectly) that He was from or born in Galilee, not Bethlehem. Nicodemus tried to reason with them with a more open-minded, "let's see" attitude. I would bet that those who leaned toward Nicodemus' understanding of the way God works were closer to conversion than the ones who held to their incorrect assumptions.

IIRC, Paul Reeve has pointed out that by “priesthood” Young is probably referring to the patriarchal order—that what changed Young’s mind about blacks and the priesthood (he was initially in favor of it) was coming to understand the importance of the temple sealing, developing a horror that righteous Abel’s line of posterity had been cut off, and concluding (via inspiration or otherwise) that Cain ought not to have priesthood-bearing seed until Abel did.  So . . . maybe 1978 was the year Abel finally finally attained his exaltation, took his place upon a throne (as, IIRC, we are told that Abraham and some other patriarchs already have), and—presumably—attained godhood.
Of course, in modern times we’ve been asked not to speculate about this.  But since so many disregard that counsel by speculating—even arguing—that the ban was spurious, I don’t know that there’s a lot of harm in pondering the possibility that maybe BY was, to some extent, right.

That's the trick, isn't it. So very little has been said by the brethren, past or present, that definitively addresses the question. Here's two quotes from the essay @LDSGatorreferenced:
"None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."
"...the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past..."
Disavowing and not accepting falls short of saying it's not true. In the absence of an official doctrine I think they are going out of their way to not put revelatory words into the Lord's mouth. But it doesn't mean it's true either. Just a lot of theories.

I think the church wrote an essay on this, if that helps:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
 
 

I find it hard to talk about the judgemental-ness of others without becoming judgemental myself.
When someone asks me "Am I a Christian?" I answer yes... because I believe that answer is correct.  When someone (rarely) asks "Why do "others" consider you to not be Christian?"  and I can answer that one too.  There is a doctrinal difference that is at the foundation of the disagreement.  A lot of people like to make a big deal of the difference, but for me when I ask myself if I were to believe differently on the doctrinal point would I be acting differently.  And I have to say the answer is No.
While I disagree with the other doctrinal interpretation for many reasons I have never found the difference to make a difference in how I act.

Alright that's probably true...I do think it depends on the motive.  A lot of the time people are just wanting to pass judgement on others, and push themselves up.  And certainly you can't tell if someone's a Christian, that's between them and God.  However, you can tell if a doctrine is Christian.  Doctrine doesn't save people, but it expresses their faith. And I'm not saying that it needs the be the same doctrine as mine. For all I care, you could believe the sun is a fireball from giants playing catch and still be Christian.  Its not my job to tell you whether you are Christian, I understand that, but here is my motive for asking: Look at the world, it's crumbling. Do you know how often I lie awake at night in sorrow for all my friends, family, the whole world that is going to eternal sin because they aren't Christian?  I'm not asking to tell you if you're Christian, or judge you for being or not being Christian. That's between you and God. But if I can convince myself you are, it means that there are 17 million more people that I'm not laying awake for, that my heart doesn't have to break for.  I try to lie to myself a lot, make as many people Christian in my mind as I can. In reality, I know
 
From an outside viewpoint, doesn't the entirety of the Gospel sound outrageous?  When all the world tells you that the only thing there is is the physical world, wouldn't an omnipotent God sound outrageous?  When you give it a chance its clear its real, but we're also too impatient to give it a chance. I knew a kid that isn't Christian today because when his parents gave him a Bible, he said it was boring.  
As a member of multiple of your outrageous church teachings... But really, I've never met a person who has left the Church because of Pre-Trib.  I'm sure some have. I'm sure some have also left because in their minds this guy came back from the dead. It's another way of seeing the afterlife.  Most ways sound outrageous.  Salvation and choice based ones, like Calvinism would indeed pull people away from the Church.  If I was taught Calvinism I probably would have left.  But to blame other doctrines and theories for people leaving the church, it seems like a stretch to me.  Way more people leave because of controversy and politics, like abortion or homosexuality, wanting to follow the world. 
He's God. He could. Whether he does or doesn't is the question.  

That’s what scares me the most. I actually want Biden out of office as much as anyone here, but because Trump has some, uh, “baggage” I think the GOP will shoot themselves in the foot by nominating him. Time will tell. 

What’s the best definition of insanity? Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. What makes you think Trump vs Biden II will produce different results than Trump vs Biden I? 

This is clearly a sin.  Jesus commanded that our i be single.

It comes around every 2nπ. Period. (I realize it's "full stop" for you Brits, but that would ruin the pun.)

It's a complex calculation.

It's all in your imagination.

We had a good six hour D&D session last night.  Players are currently in a massive caver in the Underdark with a strange corrupted forest.  They spent most the night fighting strange trolls and strange plants.  

I might have gone a little overboard after reading Ready Player One.  The arcade simulator plays like 500 games (from X-arcade). I had my twin bro help me customize it.  It’s been in the garage for the last 6 mo due to the current home remodel.  
Robotron is my favorite.

Hi. I’m a life-long LDS member outside of a break from the church from ages 14-21.  I’m in my 30’s now, sealed in the temple with three young kids, and have remained very active over the last 12+ years since I came back from my “break”.
I have struggled over a multi-year period on the question if God is real. The point of this post is not to try and convince anyone that God is not real, I genuinely want to believe that He is and am looking for people to help me work through this issue. The nagging question that has dominated my mind is if men have made up religion over time to help themselves feel better about, and give purpose to, life. Everyone wants to know why they are on the earth, how they got here, where they go after. 
I understand logically that religion provides answers to these questions and that these answers (if believed faithfully) give us peace and purpose. What I can’t get out of my head is what if all these things were made up specifically to fill those gaps but is not true. I’m not calling anyone a liar or saying anyone is pretending to believe - I absolutely believe the leaders of our church (and most members) truly do believe it all and are not trying to mislead us in any way. I desperately wish that I didn’t have these doubts, but I do.
What is life is just completely random and the bad things that happen to us are not part of a plan? What if all the suffering (a child dying, losing jobs, etc.) has no silver lining and are just random happenings that will make our lives worse. I struggle to see how God could allow a lot of things that happen in the world everyday - there are so many places where people suffer and die from hunger, people are regularly beaten and raped. A family with young children loses a mom or a dad. How can that be a part of God’s plan in any way? There are other more scientific questions about the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs existing, evolution, etc. that seem to be real things and in my mind and conflict with LDS beliefs. A lot of places where the LDS answer is that “we don’t know why these things happen”, but we should believe there is a reason.
One of the parts where this messes with me the most is with death (if not obvious from my examples given above). I love my wife and kids more than anything, but what if there is no afterlife? What if I’m one random act (a car crash for example) away from losing a child, and if there is no afterlife then I will never be with them again? If there is no afterlife and I die in a car crash, what happens next to me? Blackness for ever?
A natural defense for someone (especially a life-long member) to know that God is real is to think back on the spiritual experiences they have had as proof that God exists. But what if these experiences were figments of our own imagination that we have convinced ourselves of and didn’t actually happen?
It is easy for me to see that believing in God / religion results in a better life overall - navigating all of life’s trials and tribulations is 100x easier if we believe that it is all a part of God’s plan; if we believe that all bad things that happen in the world are for a reason and all make sense / work for the best from the perspective of an omniscient God.
A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I would not be able to PROVE God was real, but I also wouldn’t be able to prove the opposite. So if I can’t take solace in any spiritual experiences I’ve had to date because I’m worried that they were made up in my head, then since it can’t be PROVEN one way or the other, it’s simply a choice of believing or not. I am trying to choose to believe but it has been difficult to not let these doubts take over. I have tried to pray for confirmation but the thought of spiritual experiences possibly being made up is probably blocking that from happening.
On a separate note, I have both lived in accordance with the gospel and have done the opposite, and can say I have a strong testimony that following things like the word of wisdom, our views on family / marriage. etc. will result in a happier life while on this earth. I have not deviated from these beliefs and regardless if I think God is real, I know this is the blueprint for the most happy / successful life on earth.
So that is the core of my testimony for now: 1. I am trying to choose to believe that God is real (despite the doubts I have) and that everything the LDS church teaches is true. And 2. That following the gospel way of living will continue to bring the most happiness throughout life.
 
 
 
I know this has been a long post and a bit all over the place, so thanks for sticking with me if you have. As I said above, I wish I didn’t have these doubts, but I do, and I’m trying to figure it all out. I would be grateful for any thoughts you have that may help me as I continue to try and work through this.

I do a billion things, none of them well.  Many of them well enough for me.  
Creative dabbling (partially done because I like such things, partially done to force me to face fears and interact with humans):
- Learned the Ukulele enough to do one of these with a daughter at the Ward Christmas party. 
- I participated in a collaborative online art project involving dozens of people who never met each other, from Calgary to Colorado to Burlingame CA.  5 levels of abstraction. 
- I've written and performed songs.  One to a live audience of two, one of whom was not a friend or family member.  One made into a YouTube video, which garnered over 100 likes.  (And challenged my artistic daughter to beat that record.)
- I wrote and published a 6k-word short story, and got 2 positive reviews, including one person who admitted getting moved to tears.
Other stuff:
- I joined my company's medical response team and learned how to do that stuff, and have been able to use those skills at least once a year.
- I routinely, at least daily, go online and talk religion politics and culture with strangers.  For 25 years.  It's rare for me to miss a day.  (Maybe 2-10% of that time is spent here.)
- I'll find buddies on opposite sides of my fences and do everything I can to learn what drives them, and make sure I can follow Christ's commandment to love my neighbor.  I try to learn enough to be able to joke with them in their terms.
 

Keep yourself strong, brother (or sister). Keep up your habits of personal devotion, such as prayer, fasting, and scripture study. You are and always will be an example to your children. Don't despair. In Christ, all tears shall be wiped away and replaced with joy and happiness. This I truly believe, and I cling to this promise. Your children are not yet lost, and much remains to be written in their personal stories. Surround yourselves with faithful and loving Saints. Lean on them.

Hello all,
I joined this forum because I need some advice from believers. I have been a member my whole life and raised up all my kids actively in the church. My oldest two kids left the church as adults because of perceived problems with origins and Joseph Smith. I still have three active adult children and have worked hard to keep a good relationship with all five of my kids including the ones who became "disaffected" and stepped away from the faith. I have recently discovered that one of my adult children is heavily and visibly involved with "anti-Mormon" rhetoric online, having several personal platforms with numerous followers. Unfortunately it appears that they are pretty successful. I'm not sure how to handle this. I know that love is the key, but I'm not sure what love means in this situation or how to apply it correctly or how to maintain a relationship with someone who is vocally and visibly very "anti." This crosses a line that is different than simply "leaving the church." I have already made the decision to never engage with any of the online content, but I need some moral support or suggestions on how to address this in my relationship with this adult child AND as a family matter where several others are in the family that will most probably be negatively impacted by this. (Unfortunately, Satan is very strong.) Also, FYI the content is particularly emotional and victim-y. It doesn't have a lot, if any, accurate doctrinal content or context, is not well-researched, or even logical. I'm not sure why it's so popular except that some ex-Mormons seem to just love to complain about and bash the church. I love the church and I love the Savior and am offended by this child's actions. They are not yet aware that I know what's going on as I stumbled upon it with some nudges from the spirit. I'm trying to determine the best way to navigate this situation and move forward. Any help or perspectives are greatly appreciated. Thank you!