zil

Dude, one of my dad's ancestors came across the channel with him. And Prince Charles is either my 14th cousin umpteen times removed or my umpteenth cousin 14 times removed (I can never remember which one is 14 or what the other one is) And my mom's family was always on the opposite side from dad's - Scots vs English, South vs North, etc.

At least two of my ancestors can be found in books: "Outlaw" Bill Mitchell aka Baldy Russell and John Lathrop and another printing, with more detail. Lots and lots of people are descended from John Lathrop, and his story is inspiring. The outlaw story is the classic story of a family feud taken much too far.

PC: do you see the logic flaw? Trump may or may not nominate a pro-abortion judge. HRC *certainly* will nominate a pro-abortion judge. So if you want a *chance* that the nominated judge will be pro-life, Trump is the better chance. That said, the only things worse than Trump are Sanders and Hillary. IMO, if Republicans were smart, they'd all (including the remaining "candidates", and prior candidates who have backed Trump) get behind Cruz. At this point, Cruz is the only viable alternative to Trump, and I don't believe for a minute that Trump is capable of defeating Hillary.

I ignore probably 99.999% of science (a fraction of which is known to mortal men), because "Who cares, let’s focus on what is important." If you want to study one science or another, go for it. But asteroid compositions and the latest rocket designs and such don't impact my daily decisions. There are so many things to study in mortality, that I have no problem with anyone studying almost anything. IMO, apparent conflicts between science and revealed truth is nothing more than evidence of our own ignorance. I choose to trust revealed truth and acknowledge that we have no clue how God brought many (most?) things to pass, and how he did it isn't the point - the Bible isn't a world-building manual, it's a faith-building manual. Personally, I believe Adam and Eve were real people created as described in scripture* and that the endowment is overflowing with symbolism meant to teach us about a lot more important things than how Adam and Eve passed their time. *Note that the D&C leaves no doubt they were real people, not symbols or fictional characters. As for how they were created, I believe the scriptural description is completely accurate - as far as it goes. Whether I understand it, or how much of the irrelevant-to-me bits were left out, is a whole 'nother (unanswerable) question. And I think the same thing about every other scriptural story that some people see as "far fetched". Some people willfully limit their capacity to believe in the miraculous and in powers beyond their comprehension. For example, I believe Christ walked on water (or slightly above it so that he appeared to be walking on water). I believe he was able to do that because he understood the various natural forces (laws of physics and other laws) needed to accomplish the goal, and used them the same way an airplane builder understands and uses natural forces to enable the plane to fly despite the fact that gravity really wants it to stay on the ground. Those who think they must choose either science or faith are severely limiting themselves (and severely misunderstanding what faith is). I find that life is far better when I let go of skepticism, which is only good for areas where self-preservation is the goal. Where self-expansion is the goal, I believe all things are possible (by definition), even the things science doesn't yet understand.

Because that's the world to which her thinking leads. When I lived in Moscow (Russia), the thing which struck me is that they are the exact opposite from us in this key way: In the US, unless it's explicitly forbidden, it's allowed. In Russia, unless it's explicitly allowed, it's forbidden. Unfortunately, many people cannot see which is the correct default.

Well, the child will be a spirit when this occurs, and could correctly explain, "I didn't know any better, this is my account." Thus accounting for his/her decisions. (Please excuse me while I go catch those nits that just ran by!) Seriously, you've already got me pondering and trying to find better ways to make my mortal mind understand these concepts, after which I will attempt to find better ways to explain my thoughts (not necessarily here, just in general, because I like to be able to explain what I think, in case it comes up). I think your comments are most significant because we need to ensure we are always clear about the innocence of little children - that they don't need baptism, especially. And my linguistics could lead someone to believe I'm teaching something contrary, and I do NOT want that!

Not in Eden, before the Plan of Salvation was presented: Moses 4:3 "3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" ...Satan could not seek to take away something we had not yet been given. 2 Nephi 2 is a fabulous discussion of agency and all that surrounds it. TFP can correctly say that mortal children before the age of accountability, have no agency, if we use his definition of agency, provided earlier in the thread. If you use my definition of agency and accountability (also provided earlier), then they did have agency and are accountable (but excused from any and all negative consequences, cuz they didn't know better). Neither idea is in conflict, they just present the same belief using different linguistics. Agreed, though we should be very careful about attempting mortal correlation and judgement of current conditions and previous behavior (e.g. we should not say: "He's handicapped so he was wicked in pre-mortality." - the New Testament makes it perfectly clear that's nonsense. As long as you mean full light and truth of the Plan of Salvation, as opposed to omniscience, we agree. If you mean to imply that all of God's children were omniscient when the plan was presented, I disagree. There are differences between malicious concealment, lies, and people not being capable of handling more. I reject the notion that all of pre-mortal humanity were omniscient at that point. Abraham 3:19-28 (though I'm only quoting 19) "19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." If we were all omniscient, there would not be some more intelligent than others - the two are incompatible, there's no such thing as "more omniscient". Thus, Christ was indeed omniscient before mortality. God of course was omniscient long before this. Not all of us were (some may have been). But we all knew sufficient. Amen. But my lack of knowledge, then or now, does not mean God was hiding things or lying - it means I had/have not learned all things yet.

LP: It seems like you're reading "patrol and secure" as "guard and lock down" like one would do to a prison. I read "patrol and secure" and I see police cars driving through the neighborhoods a bit more often, beat cops walking the streets and talking to residents more often, and if / when potential danger is observed, they do their job and investigate within the confines of the law. Of course, I also asked myself when I read this part of his statement, "why do we need to empower them? this sounds like their normal job." And the only reason I could think of is if some PC nonsense prevents them from stepping up patrols in high-risk areas lest that be seen as profiling. If he's suggesting they be empowered to go beyond what the law allows, then I disagree with him, but I'm not willing to assume he does - that will need to be proven to me.

I'm sorry your experience was and is so trying. I don't know that anything any of us says can bring you peace. The Prince of Peace is the only one who can do that. Not only can he help you repent, he can help you forgive others, and he can help you overcome shame or embarrassment. As for what the purpose of your disfellowshipment was supposed to be, only the bishop or the Lord can tell you that. I can make educated guesses, such as: to prevent you from renewing covenants that might condemn you if done in the wrong spirit, or to encourage you to reflect deeply on the blessings of fellowship, or to encourage humility and greater reliance on the Lord. But that doesn't mean I'd guess right. In my experience, while one can mindlessly partake of the Sacrament (possibly to their condemnation), it's not possible to mindlessly refrain from partaking of the Sacrament. And that in and of itself leads to serious reflection and humility. One final thought: the disciple chooses whether to learn. You have a chance learn from this experience (fair and positive experiences aren't the only kind from which we can learn), or whether to let it dim the light in your life. Choose learning.

Agree, and for the record, I never thought children or those like you describe, would be punished for things that cannot be sins (because once all the circumstances are taken into account, they can't be sins). I just hadn't thought of agency from this direction. It's like looking at a forest: from the middle, it looks one way; completely different from outside at eye level; and completely different again when looking down on the canopy from above. It's still the same forest, but depending on where you are, you see different things. I like things which cause me to see from a different perspective because I find it increases my understanding.

I think that's only true if we consider "accountable" a negative. It's not just what choice I made that goes into accountability, it's everything that was involved in getting to that point. I'm perfectly happy to be held accountable for time spent in church, or at the temple, for example, and I believe I will be held accountable. If I did well, the account will be in my favor. Little children make choices (using their agency - from my definition of the word), and their "accountability" will consist of "you were too young to know any different". I know, we talk about "age of accountability" - I just see this one like consequences - they're not just bad things... Anywho, are you suggesting that they made choices without agency? It's an interesting idea. From a certain perspective, I can understand that idea. (And from that perspective, I agree with it.) And that would explain why you separate ability to make choices from agency (earlier in the thread). I shall now ponder further - there's value to this perspective as it adds more dimensions to the way I already think about this. This is the trouble with mortal language: it's so imprecise. No wonder some events from Christ's visit to the Nephites couldn't be recorded - our language (and theirs) is inadequate to the task. (Which now gives me something more to ponder in regard to how those 24 Jaredite plates could have held so much - a more precise language would allow for much greater efficiency.)

We may not see evidence of the accountability in mortality, but I assure you, there will be full accountability before it's all over. No person with agency will escape being held accountable for his/her choices.

Even though the comment is now deleted, I want to address the idea of Heavenly Father knowing us individually, versus the sealing ordinance having fixed words. Here are some thoughts to keep in the background: 1. I'm not sure we've established the formal text of the sealing ceremony, nor should we in this setting. That text belongs in the temple, not out here. 2. A bunch of people on a forum don't know everything your temple sealing ceremony might include, and even if they do, they can't talk about it all out here. Please let go of the worries and fears and confusion that grip you out here, and consider the suggestion of talking to the temple sealer - he can give you facts, and address your personal questions. 3. Think of all the ordinances we do (Sacrament, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc., etc.) none change based on those present. Not one has its wording changed for the specific individual - not even baptism and confirmation* which are done for just 1 person. That's not because Heavenly Father doesn't know us, but because each of us needs the same ordinances, whether we're baptized at 8 or 80. The ordinance is the ordinance. It is meant to teach and guide us as much as bless us, and is a ritual to that effect. We should think of the words in those terms. (And despite using the exact same text for each person, they can be very personal, if you let the Spirit speak the personal portion to your heart.) * The personal blessing spoken after the ordinance of confirmation is not the ordinance, it's a blessing: 4. Demonstration of Heavenly Father's knowledge of each of us personally comes in personal revelations, blessings given on an individual basis, promptings, and in similar personal experiences. Seek for His guidance as you struggle with these questions, be humble, acknowledge your testimony and fears, then let Him speak personally to you. Satan doesn't want you to be sealed. He will do everything he can to make you doubt, or feel fear or anger. He wants to keep you from ever entering the temple again. He doesn't want you doing your own work, or work for the dead, he doesn't want you sealed to your spouse, children, or grandchildren. And he'll do anything to stop these things, including continual reminding of how the things you've heard don't make sense to you right now, telling you they mean things that they don't mean. Reject his efforts, and seek divine help to do so.

I'll go with agency is the ability to make choices and being accountable for those choices. FYI, in my mind, the two are inseparable and therefore redundant, but I understand the need to be explicit. (My brain: if you are able to make choices, then of course you are accountable for what you choose. It's not the accountability that gives you agency, it's having agency that makes you accountable.) To put it another way: can you be accountable if you don't have the ability? I think not (certainly not fairly). Thus, the agency (ability) comes first, and accountability is a natural consequence, an inseparable attachment to that ability. (And I fully understand that not everyone's going to agree on this, and I'm OK with that, it just makes a discussion easier when you know each others' definitions....)

I tend to agree with this. (Slight change of topic. The below is full of repeats, for emphasis. Please read the entire thing before you react.) Also, and I know Traveler won't agree with this, but I here is what I think "Agency" is: It is our ability to make choices, and I think it's an on/off thing. God has given us agency. We have it. You don't have more than I do. I don't have more than the vilest sinner does. Agency is not the choice you make (that's the use of agency, but it's not the agency itself). Agency is not knowledge, or opposition, or truth. Agency is your ability to make choices. Opposition (choices) is necessary in order to use agency. Knowledge is necessary in order to use agency well. Experience will either help you to use your agency better, or lead you to use it (more) poorly. As you increase in knowledge, wisdom, and/or intelligence, you are better able to use your agency for good, because you have a better understanding of the truth. But you are no more able to choose than you were before - you're just able to choose better because you have learned better. The vilest sinner, as he descends into the depths learns even worse ways to use his agency. He's not losing or increasing the "amount" of agency he has, though he may be limiting the choices open to him by destroying himself. And that is why I don't believe omniscience is necessary in order to make the right choices. God has given all (except perhaps some handicapped individuals) enough knowledge, coupled with the light of Christ, to enable us to choose either to seek more light, or to turn away from the light. That's agency. Once you choose one, the available options change, and you are free to choose another. In this way, if you choose right, you learn and are brought line upon line and precept upon precept to a full knowledge of the truth - but you don't need to start with full knowledge in order to choose. If you choose poorly, and persist in that, your knowledge of the good will decrease, your knowledge of evil will increase, and if you don't turn around, eventually you will choose the depths of hell. But either way, your ability to choose, your agency, is still there and operative. IMO, far too many discussions of agency mix it up with opposition, knowledge, intelligence, which choices you make, and similar things. IMO, this clouds the discussions. Interpretation by Zil - worth every penny you paid for it!

Right, just give me a moment to get some new things posted... (In this case, "moment" should be understood as "between 3 and 6 months". )

Pffff - I'm thinking you just lost the check. Maybe you should check under the bathroom sink.

Ooooh, riiiight, wedded bliss made me forgot aaaall about it.

You had a link to my site in your old sig?

^^That. I think you should try to give it more time. At one point in your story, you indicated she had said she did want to be sealed to you, but told the SP she did not. Did I misunderstand, did she change her mind, or is this a case of "she wishes she could be, but feels she can't be because of prior covenants"? I think you need to work that out with her to be sure you're clear on where she is. And you should note that her feelings may change over time. (It generally takes about 5 years for a person to recover from a significant loss like the ones you're describing - divorce or death - and can take longer.) There's a couple in my ward. Both were previously sealed and had children with their previous spouses. The previous spouses passed away in mid-life. This couple met after both deaths, fell in love, and had a civil marriage and children (and the Lord guided them in all this). They love each other deeply. Neither can or will break the previous sealing (and don't want to - they loved their previous spouses and had children with them) and yet they wish they could be sealed to each other and their children. Neither knows how all this will be resolved in the eternities, but they have faith it will be.

Carb, I think he was asking for an explanation of the great apostasy - CliffNotes version. For example, there's this brief blurb under "Gospel Topics" on lds.org: https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng FWIW

Because there's no inherent clue to help you remember, and with everything else capitalized, it's counter-intuitive to not capitalize the "d", and a capital "The" in the middle of a sentence just looks weird. I remember through sheer force of will because I've written the name enough that I kinda have to.

When my collection is large enough, I plan to convert them to tins and sell them on ebay!

Not to pick nits, but the t in "the" is always capitalized and the d in "day" is lower case - and it matters because the capital D is (was) for the reorganized church - granted, without the hyphen, and they've changed their name, but it's probably best to be picky in this case so there's zero chance of confusion...

And then there's UPC barcodes, and some Caesar or other, and the second school bus at the US Embassy in Moscow (where the license plates consist of the letter D (for diplomatic) followed by 004 (for United States) followed by the 3-digit identifier of the vehicle). Yes, that was done on purpose, because well, 666 just seems appropriate for a vehicle full of little demons...