zil

Essentially, this thread is a waste of everyone's time.  @star.bright is very angry about the fact that some people have committed unspeakably cruel acts, and God has not stopped them from doing so.  @star.bright hates these criminals (and perhaps God, not sure; perhaps just doesn't believe in God anymore).  @star.bright claims to want an explanation of why God would allow such evil to happen, but in the OP pre-rejected any possible answer, especially the truth, thus making the discussion pointless.
Meanwhile, @star.bright has accused @Jane_Doe of not having compassion for victims or horrible crime, which, if @star.bright knew Jane's past, @star.bright would never have said (based on @star.bright's expressions of concern for victims).
@star.bright has also attacked the character of a few of the respondents, and I don't buy the whole "English isn't my first language, you don't understand" claim.  Further, I'm pretty sure German uses paragraphs, and I wish @star.bright would, too.
I suspect @askandanswer was trying to determine whether @star.bright would prefer that no one have free will, or only wants some limit on the degree of evil we can act out, or some other thing, but @star.bright has repeatedly avoided engaging, and seems to prefer raging against those guilty of unspeakable acts, and against anyone who doesn't immediately join in the raging.  @star.bright has also rejected the notion that hate and anger destroy the one who feels them, regardless of whether the object of the emotions "deserves" them.
I think that about sums it up.

Agreed.
Great to have you back @zil

I also read this article that helped greatly. The Lord has set up a pattern as it says in D&C 52 so we won’t be deceived. People were being deceived around the time that section was written so I believe This pattern was meant for us too.  I also don’t think it is right to use the Nephi and Abraham stories as any reason ever to not follow the prophets in your life. The more sure way of revelation, comes through keeping Gods word that prophets have revealed. God is not going tell anyone to go against His revealed prophet because of that pattern which has been set up in this dispensation. He might give clarification or build on why there is the Nephi and Laban story but anyways thank you all for seeing me through this. I feel so much better. I hope to not have opened any more cans of worms!!  Thanks. 

I’m more righteous than you, because this horrible thing made me angrier than it made you!  

In fact, you've just used 14 out of 26 of them.

And if you tell us about your vacation inside the expanded compound then we will have stories within storeys. 

Speaking of which, have you seen the contractor's estimate on the cost of expanding the compound?  I'm thinking maybe we just add another story to the main building and call it good.

I knew you were a closet commie.  Time to refurbish the compound's re-education chamber - it's woefully out of date.

I knew you were a closet commie.  Time to refurbish the compound's re-education chamber - it's woefully out of date.

I think this is wise. I agree with you that you should measure all things by the standards we have been given.
The idea that God told your friend to enter into a same-sex relationship doesn't pass the sniff test. While LiterateParakeet is right in that your friend's supposed "revelation" isn't your concern, you can still safely assume that no such "revelation" took place, or if it did, it was not a revelation from God.

Not sure why this is hard. People claim all sorts of false things. I just had a revelation from God that I need to eat a chocolate sundae. Do you believe me? You don't need to believe my spurious "revelation" just because I said it.
Some people lie to justify themselves. Some people invent things and then believe their own inventions. Some people are mentally unstable. Some people are foolish and allow themselves to believe that mere desire is tantamount to the voice of God. Not to be critical, but seriously, why is this hard?

For those of us on the forum who are used to programming languages, in an array of items, 0 is the index of the 1st item.  person0 would be like saying 'the first person'.

The book! The book! 

Undecided.  I've been lurking more over the past few weeks.  What I can't figure out is why the Comet thread has yet to mention any of the other reindeer - I mean, if he hits the Earth that hard, I'm thinking it's gonna affect the other reindeer and the sleigh.  And this would indicate Santa doesn't keep them on Earth (not enough room), but that would also explain how they manage to haul so many presents around so quickly...  Sure, the moon is interesting and all, but not nearly so important...

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no?  Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from?  At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another.  Maybe I just don't understand the word.  One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI).
IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite.  If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number.  Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount.  We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it.  IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them.
NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no?  Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from?  At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another.  Maybe I just don't understand the word.  One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI).
IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite.  If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number.  Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount.  We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it.  IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them.
NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Good points, all.  As always, it's difficult to summarize into words on the internet what is in one's mind.
If, for the sake of argument, there are others who are "peers" to God, whether in this universe or any other, and whether or not I might one day meet them, they will never be "God" to me.  Thus, I have only one God.  While I said "worship-able", I suppose I should also have added that bit.  They may be "God" to someone else, but they can never be "God" to me - even if I wanted them to be, can't happen.
That fact seems to me to exclude me from "henotheist".  It seems to me that "henotheist" implies the possibility that I can (or at least believe I can) "switch sides".  In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there isn't the remotest possibility of switching sides or adding additional entities to what constitutes "God".  (At least, nothing I've ever heard says that, and I disagree with @anatess2's notion of others joining the Godhead - being at one with them (and still subject to), sure, but never one of them (which implies, to me, no-longer-subject).)

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no?  Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from?  At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another.  Maybe I just don't understand the word.  One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI).
IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite.  If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number.  Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount.  We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it.  IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them.
NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no?  Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from?  At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another.  Maybe I just don't understand the word.  One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI).
IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite.  If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number.  Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount.  We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it.  IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them.
NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

This is a fair point. Trinitarians bristle at the Muslim/Jewish understanding of our faith. We are not polytheists. However, I understand their opposition and do not expect to convince them that the Trinity is monotheistic. Likewise, you explain your understanding of monotheism, state that the church affirms this is their belief, and likely expect my respectful disagreement. This is the crux of it right here. Honestly, I suspect we all have gained a little bit clearer understanding of our own doctrine and of each others. Thank you!