askandanswer

I'm much the same way, which is in part what led me to this faith.  I'm an adult convert that made a post here one day asking questions.   Now here I am.   Using this logic only, what makes more sense to me?
1.  There is a vengeful God that created man to spend eternity worshipping Him?
2.  There is a premortal family existence in which a loving Father created an opportunity for us to grow, learn, and become like Him for eternity?
 

Exodus 20:3-17:
verse 3 = commandment #1 - no other gods
verses 4-6 = commandment #2 - no idols
verse 7 = commandment #3 - don't take the name of God in vain
verses 8-11 = commandment #4 - keep the sabbath day holy
verse 12 = commandment #5 - honor father and mother
verse 13 = commandment #6 - don't murder
verse 14 = commandment #7 - don't commit adultery
verse 15 = commandment #8 - don't steal
verse 16 = commandment #9 - don't bear false witness
verse 17 = commandment #10 - don't covet

This is probably going to be a long post and I'm sorry about that.
Well yes, I've found that the only thing that really brings most people to a faith is a personally testimony and considering you already believe in God I'm  not sure what use is in that.  Perhaps if I rephrase it...I am asking questions out of curiosity and a desire to learn about your faith, I'm just REALLY bad at wording things so if it sounds like an argument please tell me and I will attempt to rephrase.
This is a good point. I suppose its less of, I need statistics and data and more of a this is the most logical outcome.  Look at the world, so finely tuned. Most logical outcome, it was designed. How a religious document is proven true? I'm now questioning that myself.
 
Oh yes if he has time it would be very much appreciated.
 
He is the source of truth.  My goal is not to force you to turn against your religion. Moreover, my goal is to find the truth of the matter and I cannot find the truth without looking at all sides.  Everything I believe I believe until I find the truth, if that makes any sense.
 
I mainly use NIV or ESV, only because I am unable to understand the wording in KJV.  (if you get a theme here I'm very good with whats in my brain but getting it there and out is difficult)
This is always something that I have been on the fence about and not really sure of the trinitarian belief, and this makes sense.
What does this mean?  Do you have to do this to be saved? If I mess up, does it mean I'm not?  
Honestly, I've never thought about this. Faith has always just been faith to me.  This makes more sense.  I've always heard that the Holy Spirit was the motivating principle. If it is faith, what does the Holy Spirit do? Or are they the same?
I've been reading about this but I am still unsure what it means.
How does it separate? Though I'm protestant, I would say I am not a charismatic Christian.
Is there a reason for using KJV? I'm just curious about that. Do you also teach with the KJV to very young children?
I've never grown up with these, but I can't say they aren't inspired by God or not scripture. I would have to look at them and see if they contradict the Bible, which I do know is God's word. 
Well, yes. If each man interpreted the word differently then there wouldn't be a truth.  I am hesitant to trust recent time prophecy because of how easy it would be to lie, but I would cross examine it with the Bible because I know God certainly can do anything. I don't quite understand it though. If I have a question about how to act am I unable to study the Bible to find truth?  Am I unable to trust what I read because I wasn't told this by God? I feel like if I needed a vision from God before doing anything I wouldn't ever actually do anything.
In my understanding, modern interpretations are only one commandment about coveting(the tenth), am I correct about that?
I agree with this...which seems to be uncommon nowadays.  This is when I sometimes wish I lived in Utah.
I'm never going to drink alcohol except at communion, but Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine wasn't it? Why would he do that? Also, tea? does that include non-caffeinated tea? And what about chocolate? 
For reference, I'm using this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2016/06/what-do-we-know-about-life-after-death?lang=eng#title15
This all seems very complicated.  Like most afterlife ideologies, I of course have my beliefs, but I've always found it to be non-salvation, or not such a big deal it could prevent you from Heaven.  However, I am confused on this.  In John it says:
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
And in Romans it says:
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom?
If you've read all this way thank you very much and I will be very excited to read any responses you have!

This seems to have some similarities with 1 Nephi 8. It might be worth re-reading that chapter and then pondering on if/how it might aid in interpreting/understanding your dream. 

@zil2 needs to draw a spiritual witch now. 

Archaic language is the explanation, as far as I know.
Webster's 1828
Can't think of anything special about the terminology beyond what the older definitions suggest.

Hello @Maytoday welcome to the forum. We could do with a few more non Latter-Day Saints here, its good to have a diversity of opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean by proven to be true, and I suspect that what constitutes proof will vary widely. Every day in courts of law across the world judges and jurors will listen to exactly the same evidence/information and come to different conclusions as to whether a particular fact has or has not been proven. 
For me, the only things that have been proven and that I can know for sure are my own existence and those things which have been confirmed personally and directly to me by the Holy Ghost. Everything else, absolutely everything else, including the theories of gravity and relativity and the idea that the sky often appears to be blue during the daytime when there are no clouds around, is usually a good working hypothesis but definitely not something I or anybody else knows. 

I suspect that my first day, and your first day, and your son's first day were all the same day
3 And I, God, said: Let there be alight; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was agood. And I, God, divided the blight from the darkness.
5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the aword of my power, and it was done as I bspake; and the evening and the morning were the first cday.

My seven year old -  “Dad, what was the first day like?”

To clarify (and my apologies if this goes further down the rabbit hole, but the response of my inner twelve-year-old would be "You Started It!"):
What I said (or was attempting to say) is that, accoring to Greg Prince*, President McKay wanted to change the Church's policy with respect to who can receive the Priesthood. But in sincerely and repeatedly asking of God, he reported something like "the heavens were a brass ceiling over my head". While I realize that nothing a prophet says makes a particle of difference to non-Latter-day Saints, I would think that any faithful and believing Saint would interpret an utter lack of divine response to a Church President's direct, sincere, and repeated petition as just that: Silence from God. The man was literally asking God, "Can I ordain black men to the Priesthood", and God wasn't answering. If the policy of the Church was to avoid ordaining men of sub-Saharan African descent, how else could such silence from heaven be interpreted other than a negative?
*Not that I find Greg Prince to be a particularly credible source, but I see no reason to disbelieve this.
In contrast, when President Kimball asked that very same question of the Lord a decade or so later, he eventually received a clear spiritual response. When he presented the revelation to the Brethren, all testified that they received the same spiritual response. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I see no other reasonable interpretation except that God did not want LDS Church policy changed in the 1950s or 1960s or early 1970s when his prophet asked back then, but he did want it to change in the late 1970s when his prophet asked at that time. And if God specifically did not want a policy to change, then that is at the very least a tacit endorsement of said policy. Thus, at least to that degree, we can be completely sure the continuation of that policy was of God, regardless of how, why, or by whom it was instituted.

Like @Carborendum, I have no social media accounts apart from here at thirdhour and this site is where I make my largest digital footprint. 
I find it odd that you are asking us to form an opinion on the basis of half a dozen media posts made over a period of two or three years, the most recent of which was more than 6 years ago. Surely a well-informed opinion would be based on an objective and even-handed analysis of all of his social media posts. Even that would be a totally inadequate basis on which to form a reliable opinion as it would only cover one aspect of his life. 

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure, at least to the level that God refused to rescind it as recently (at least) as David O. McKay. We may importune God as we see fit, but God is not required to do anything just because we ask it of him.
If there is a principle of the gospel of which you do not have a testimony. silent loyalty to that principle is your very best option until you gain a spiritual conviction of it.

A thought I had while reading your post is how, from the beginning, the Lord has involved in His kingdom those who would ultimately fall away if not completely turn against His Church. Whether it's Lucifer, Judas or many of the early brethren who disaffected the Lord does not seem to fear disloyalty. And I think this aspect of building the kingdom is only going to get magnified with time. He will strengthen and use their talents until they decide on whose side they are really on. And I think we may be surprised by which side some choose both bad and good. But what we do know is that all things will be made to work to accomplish the Lord's purposes. That may make it a bit uncomfortable for us but there is purpose to that too.

Lots of things I could say.  The one that seems best is: I trust the Lord Jesus Christ.  He leads the Church.  This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

We all have to make a living, and I don’t pay his bills or feed his family with my paycheck. Nor am I going to start doing so. I should probably be quiet.  
 
However, if he asked for my opinion I’d tell them to get another job. It’s dirty. Like working for an adult movie manufacturer.  

Like you, I was surprised to note that he worked for Phillip Morris. I guess that if there is any truth in the idea of karma, we would have to balance his work at Phillip Morris against his employment as the Managing Director of Public Affairs for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. Government development assistance agency, where he worked within both Republican and Democratic administration leadership to administer $7 billion in poverty reduction grants in 40 partner countries. Maybe his contribution to ending lives is less than his contribution to saving lives. Who knows? 

I can't really search as well as others since I'm not actively on social media.  I have a Facebook account. But I don't think I've actually logged in for several years.  I have no other accounts on Instagram, X, TikTok, or any of the myriad other stuff that's out there. 
This site is where I have my biggest digital footprint.

A good communications director knows how to keep personal opinion out of how they represent their employer. Time will tell if he is good at his job. It sounds like he works pretty close to the brethren. If there were multiple levels of separation, personnel speaking, between he and them I would be more concerned. But regardless I doubt this was an uninspired decision so I'm not worried.

@mirkwood You are one sick puppy. 

What a disaster! Its so sad that it takes years of work, high personal risk and lots of dollars to overcome injustice.
Here in Australia. we're developing a good history of class actions being effectively used by large combinations of little people to successfully hold large and powerful organisations to account. The scary thing is that in the early/middle parts of last year, a number of politicians began talking about the evils of class actions and how there needed to be new legislation controlling/limiting the conditions under which a class action could be run. I haven't heard much more since then, but I find it worrying that politicians who are supposed to be the people's representatives have been talking about finding ways to limit one of the very few means that people have to have their voices effectively heard and to lessen the power imbalance. 

Sort of like a bizarro version of the starfish parable?
Them: "You can't hope to make a difference here - there are too many of them!"
Me (dripping with bug guts and looking wild-eyed): "It matters to this one! [squish]  And this one and this one and this one! [squishsquishsquish]"

This comic came out like 8 years ago.  I feel it's relevant across all sorts of software security systems.

Like I say, we don't know that it's true, but I can well imagine a narrative in which it might be true.
The Post Office puts out its invitation to tender, and several companies, including Fujitsu UK, decide to respond
Now there's a very high-up and ultra-ambitious "suit" in Fujitsu UK who I'll call Mr. Big Suit. (Maybe its a Ms. Big Suit, but I've a gut feeling it was a Mr.) Mr. Big Suit got promoted to where he is not by being particularly clever or competent (which he isn't) but because of a ruthless determination to get things done. He's a "mover and a shaker", and as such has often come in useful to his superiors.
Mr. Big Suit is determined to get the contact, and he will get the contact whatever it takes! 
He knows that with a brand name like Fujitsu behind him, he doesn't have to prove he can deliver the goods. But he does need to undercut the competition. So he instructs his underlings - his department heads - (with a variety of threats and promises) to quote the lowest price possible for each aspect of the project. He tells them that the quote needs to be low, and if he loses this contract because it's too high, he will not be pleased. At all. 
So Mr. Big Suit's underlings give him what he wants and Fujitsu wins the contract. They now need to deliver. They soon find that with the budget they have for this project, they can't afford to employ their best developers on it. So they put together a rag-tag team of assorted people whose salaries they can afford to pay. This rag-tag team does its best, and after a year or so has created a sort-of system which sort-of does the job, and sort-of doesn't. Mr. Big Suit now fears he's heading for a train wreck, so to cut his losses he finally does send in some of his top developers.
The top developers take one look at what the rag-tag team have created and throw up their hands in dismay. "This needs to be rewritten from scratch" they say.
"We haven't the time nor the money for that," says Mr. Big Suit. "What do you think I pay you for? Make it work. Or else!"
So the top developers do their best, but the deadline is looming and new bugs are still popping up like weeds. Their complaints to Mr. Big Suit fall on deaf ears. He has a deadline to meet, and if he doesn't meet it then some Mr. Even Bigger Suit at Head Office will have his hide.
So the top developers battle on. The discovery of bugs slows down, but as the clock strikes twelve no one really believes that they have all been found, but...
"Hey, we don't know that there are any more bugs. Maybe the one we found and corrected earlier this morning was the last!"
The system is delivered on time. Mr. Big Suit gets his bonus. Phew.
Then the problems start.
Postmasters across the country are reporting accounting errors. Fujitsu is consulted.
The news comes to Mr. Big Suit as he sits on the shaded balcony of his office overlooking an ornamental garden. For some months he's experienced a deeply-suppressed dread of this moment, and now it's finally come. But what can he do? Admit that he's made a complete dog's dinner of the entire project? What will that do for the Fujitsu brand name? Share prices will plummet! Thousands of jobs will be put at risk! It will be ALL his fault, and Mr. Even Bigger Suit will skin him alive!
He puts down his Martini (which no longer tastes so good) and thinks hard.
"Well, I did employ my best people," he says. "Only at the end mind you, but there's no need to stress that too much. And what were they doing for those last six months? They were testing! They were looking for bugs!" (Mr. Big Suit isn't exactly sure what a "bug" is, though he has vague a mental image of a beetle crawling around inside a computer chip, eating bits of wire here and there.) "That's what I'll tell them!"
Presently Mr. Big Suit (Fujitsu) sends his reply to Mr. Big Suit (Post Office). "Horizon has been subjected to six months of intensive testing by Fujitsu's top engineers, and we are confident in the product we have supplied." The first statement is 100% true, and the second is only a white lie. After all, who knows if the problems the Post Office is having are any fault of Fujitsu? Perhaps people aren't using it correctly. Perhaps...oh, perhaps anything! We really don't know. Let's play another game of golf and try not to think about it too much.
Meanwhile Mr. Big Suit (Post Office) is at a total loss. The figures are right in front of him in black and white. Money has gone missing. Fujitsu has assured him that they are not to blame. And they are Fujitsu after all. If its anything to do with computers they should know!
So what else could be the explanation? The famous words of Sherlock Holmes drift across his mind...
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth!"
The rest is history.

(I just posted this as a round-robin e-mail at work, but some of you guys may be interested too)
This article is actually over a month old, but I only read it yesterday after web-searching about this week’s news of the Post Office/Fujitsu/Horizon appeals.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252496560/Fujitsu-bosses-knew-about-Post-Office-Horizon-IT-flaws-says-insider
(Just in case you’re unfamiliar with the story, about 20 years ago Fujitsu was commissioned to develop an IT system for the British Post Office. This was called “Horizon”. Shortly after it was installed, money started disappearing from branch accounts. Fujitsu insisted there was nothing wrong with their system, so the Post Office concluded that its own employees were stealing. Almost 1,000 were sacked, made bankrupt by repaying the money, or even sent to prison. Now it turns out the system was full of bugs, convictions are being overturned, and the Post Office is asking for a government bail-out to pay all the compensation that’s going to be claimed. Furthermore, Fujitsu executives who testified of the infallibility of their system are now likely to be prosecuted for perjury.) 
The “insider information” in this article could be the disgruntled ramblings of an angry ex-employee, so hopefully the government inquiry will get to the real truth of the matter. Nevertheless, I think there are some important lessons here that we should pass on to students:
The importance of formal methods in the high-level planning of a project, particularly a large project involving a large number of coders. Each developer should know exactly what his/her component of the system should do, and what it should not be allowed to do. The importance of robust testing. Make sure each component of a system works correctly in isolation before connecting it to other components written by other developers. (This is what I was taught as a 1st year undergraduate learning Pascal. We always had to show evidence that each sub-program we wrote had been tested individually.) The importance of continued vigilance. Even with the best formal methods and the best testing, there WILL still be bugs. It is NOT more likely that 900 previously honest postal employees suddenly turned criminal, than that there may be a bug in a system someone has told you is infallible. (And this applies even if that "someone" represents a big-brand name like Fujitsu.) Happy Easter.

So... What did he say that made him so offensive?