zil

The Doctrine and Covenants Institute manual has the following quote:
”God has all power because He is in perfect harmony with all law."
 
Just like how a man with a perfect understanding of chess will be vastly greater than a novice, so is God to man.
We are here to learn those physical and spiritual laws that we learn of in the Bible. It is law that in order to produce miracle we must be clean. Through repentance and Christ, we can live in harmony with those eternal spiritual laws and just like physical laws, the spiritual ones will manifest spiritual reactions in our lives.
Once we master all these laws, then we are like God

Ok Zil, you got me smiling again.  
Happy to have you back.

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.

Exactly how many names do you have?
PS: Wine was declared healthy long before tea was, can't believe you waited. :SMH:

Doctrine and Covenants section 134
Verses 1-3 seems to me to indicate that we ought to be able to trust our government and it officers.  I believe governments are people - and as I said - In almost all situations where trust is lost it is because what is expected is not well understood - I believe this is even true in marriage.  In order that what is expected is well understood - excellent communication is required.  A contract (rental agreement) is nothing more than an attempt to excellently communicate expectations clearly.
Even G-d establishes all things through covenants (another word for contract).  For some their word is as binding as a signed document - but regardless, it is never wise to assume expectations - I cannot think of a single factor that creates more mistrust than unfulfilled expectations that were not communicated well.  Evil, I believe to the the great exception - but by its nature, evil intends to deceive and not communicate its expectations.   Goodness and honesty require expectations to be clearly communicated.  And as one of my old missionary companions would say - "The faintest of pencils (or ink of pen to @zil ) is clearer than the brightest of memories."
 
The Traveler

@person0 and @zil I am grateful to be having this discussion.  This thread is about believing in the "Traditional" Christ.  My personal studies and considerations into the "traditional" doctrines of G-d; I find to be problematic on several levels.  I am of the mind that a large contribution to the Trinity doctrine and notions of the G-dhead and Christ come from certain corrupt ancient pagan doctrines, especially surrounding the worship of Baal and his all powerful Father El.  But that is a tangent discussion for perhaps another time.
Paramount to Latter-day Saint discussions of the G-dhead and the Christ is our unique understanding of "The Everlasting" covenant or what is understood through modern revelation to be the Plan of Salvation.  A critical notion has been removed from traditional Christian belief that we often refer to as the pre-existent counsel of Heaven.  There are important elements of our pre-existence and divine plan of Salvation such as "Agency" and the necessity of a "Fall" and need of a redeemer or savior.   The entire concept of an eternal or everlasting covenant shews logic if and when left out.  The early Christians were not idiots and fools - but without a firm understanding of the plan of salvation and in order to philosophically compete with Paganism two logical constructs were important to define G-d.  Logically G-d needed to be all powerful and creation had to be ex nihilo.
One of the most important elements of the everlasting covenant or plan of salvation is the notion of marriage by divine covenant.  Marriage is the inevitable and "necessary" element of Celestial Glory.  Can I stress this concept enough?  This concept of marriage is greatly diminished in our current society and lost in the flawed understanding of many genders.  I would purport that if all power could reside in an individual - then gender becomes meaningless.  We know from modern revelation that the power to create life does not resided with an individual but requires the compliment of a man and a woman.  Only through covenant and the complimentary uniting of the two genders does the power of what is called in scripture as the breath of life; is the creation of life possible.
In addition, modern revelation puts forth the un-mitigate-able necessity of three individuals in the G-dhead, mainly The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.  If the notion of an "All Powerful" being is creditable - then 3 individuals in the G-dhead is problematic and contradictory.  There is no logic to it.  This is why the Trinity doctrine was invented - if G-d is all powerful - then the trinity doctrine is the only logical possibility - and marriage is logically flawed as the only possibility for creation of life.  
Modern revelation through Joseph Smith is a logical miracle.  All the elements of a Plan of salvation and the divine covenant of marriage are logically sound and the only possible explanation for the Plan of Salvation, Marriage and Celestial beings being "ONE"!  It is the oneness (the compliment of gender and binding covenant of family) that is all powerful - not an individual.  
In addition there is Agency and redemption that compliment each other in the fall and atonement that also add to "Knowledge" of good and evil in order that All Power can have place with Celestial Glory.  But if in the "Beginning" G-d was all powerful would not be necessary or logical.
 
The Traveler

Indeed... exactly this.  People call us sheeple for "trusting people"  But it is not in people we trust.  It is in God.  Men, even prophets of God can and do make mistakes and even sin.  The Lord will hold them accountable for such... But the Lord is still in control.
I think we see a perfect example of this in the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.  Joseph Smith screwed up and was held accountable for such, and the Lord had it covered.  I would much more Trust the Lord to cover it then any amount of mortal transparency any day

Whelp, s/he declined to provide a gender, so I couldn't use a pronoun and still have it be clear who I meant, so, ya know, the username thing seemed to be the best option.   (After the fact, I did think maybe I should have just made up an abbreviation and used a footnote1 to explain my made-up abbreviation, but by then, it didn't seem worth it.)
1You know how I love footnotes.

I figured maybe Germans would look it up in the dictionary and be confused, so I decided to head that off at the pass.
PS: A favorite line from book one: "You mortal-whelped son of an Aat!"  (Not that I expect anyone, even you, to understand what that means (yet), but it's still one of my favorite lines.)

On the contrary, any native speaker of American English recognized and appreciated your perfectly correct usage.

Ha!  Today IS my 2 year anniversary, though!
 

Bing-o-o-o. ^^^Spoken like someone who is about to be called as the next Stake High Councilor.

Thanks.  You folks always know where the answers are.  This pretty much confirms what I said earlier.  I'm commanded to tithe, and will be held accountable for my tithing.  The "Church" is commanded to use tithes as He directs.  Those so directed will be held accountable for how they follow those directions.   

Great points @Grunt
Nothing about an individual tithe payers ability to track being a prerequisite or requirement in the commandment.
In addition, D&C 120 teaches us the pattern of who, how and when sacred funds should be used:
Financial reserves are used where and when the voice of the Lord declares it. He uses the funds on his timeline, not when the world or even individuals in the general membership think so. Elder Robert D. Hales shared the following:
Again, the Lord directs this.
 

You gave him (her) 12 notifications in a single post.  Bravo.

Apparently I don't.  (Unless what I did there was use paragraphs.)

Apparently I don't.  (Unless what I did there was use paragraphs.)

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.

I think you just might be right, haha.  Yup; confusing.

@person0, I think Traveler is presenting what would logically follow if one believed things we do not believe.  Not sure why he's not clarifying that for you (or any other reader), but that's what I suspect is happening.  Of course, I could be all wrong.  (I also suspect he subscribes to a different definition (or understanding?) of "all powerful" than you and I do, but that he's not actually arguing his definition - at least, not directly, but perhaps by demonstrating the (il)logical end of a third party's definition of "all powerful".  This kind of hard-to-follow approach is why I tend not to engage with him.)

Nothing!  Absolutely nothing!  It's perfect.  Perfect, I tell you.  Downright miraculous!
Not sure, but a capacitor might have been involved.  (Ask @mordorbund if you want to be sure.)

I see what you did there.
Welcome back.

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.