person0

Did you just trick me into clicking on vegetarian sites?!
That's the food my food eats. Please don't starve my food. Now I have to restore balance to the force by posting a picture of what cucumbers are supposed to look like.

SALT LAKE CITY – A spokesman from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced today the addition of a new session of General Conference specific to Primary-aged children.
Immediately after the announcement the Church released details about the upcoming session, which included the anticipated schedule for the two-hour meeting. What follows is an excerpt from that release:
https://thesundaypews.com/2017/03/30/church-announces-new-primary-session-of-general-conference/

We are free to decline extensive processes or procedures that only serve to preserve life at any cost.  
A couple I home teach had a sister who developed a condition that required such procedures.  Basically, she had to have her blood changed 3 times a week.  It would have been expensive and painful.  She declined to begin those procedures, and died shortly after.  We figure that was an appropriate decision.
"Pulling the plug"-type decisions aren't murder.  Administering injections or taking a pill that ceases the functions of life, well, the law may or may not call it murder, but we oughtn't to such things. 

You are assuming my statement disagree's with this, but it does not.  The fact that God already knew the choice they would make, does not mean they did not have a real choice.  It appears you have difficulty accepting the idea that if God knows with certainty something is going to happen, that thing is not 'pre-destined' simply because he knows it will occur.  Modern prophets have also testified of such.  You are disproving your interpretation of the doctrine rather than the doctrine itself.

So because God has a perfect knowledge of what would happen as the result of two different choices, but also at the same time already knows which choice his children would make you are saying he is a liar just because he didn't straight up tell us which one we were going to pick?
That doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion to me.

To me this is like a two year old expressing concern over not being able to color when they grow up.

Genesis 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

It could be stated that any given President of the United States works all the time, or at least is 'on the clock' all the time.  However, how often do they go golfing and on vacation?
After Christ was resurrected he ate food, sounds fun to me!
The real question is:  Will we make our bacon synthetically or will we import it from another world? 

Once again, I applaud your reasoning.  It is very compelling, and I can certainly understand your perspective, however, I do not believe the fact that our actions can be determined based on known information to mean determination of our actions has occurred.  Just because it is knowable and exactly predictable does not mean it is required.  You do have the choice, God knows what choice you will make, you do not yet know what choice you will make, but you are still the one who makes it and God is still the one who already knows it in advance.
Some have postulated that God could have told us before coming to earth who would make it and who would not.  I believe that in his omniscience this is true.  That being said, if he did not give us the option to choose it ourselves and know for ourselves that it is what we would do he could not justly assign us to our eternal destination (obviously there are other topics inherent in this example but I am ignoring them since they don't pertain to the discussion).
Just because it is already known, does not alter whether or not we ourselves made the choice.  That being said, in reality it doesn't matter who is right.  At the end of the day what matters is if we choose to believe in determinism (pre-destination) and use it as an excuse to commit sin.  I do not believe in determinism, but I do believe God knows my every move before I make it, because he knows me and everything around me to perfection.  How, I cannot say, but I hope to learn from him one day!

Sorry my internet died so ihevnt been able to get back till now.
Doesnt matter it can be or it can can not be. Youre free to choose one, or none, or you can add as many variables as you want.. What each variable represents does not matter.  you can have an infinite set upon an infinite set to the in finite power and never come across a possibility of having an absolutely unchangeable force, or you could have a similar set where everybpossibility involves such. The point is that for it to be able to be done in our reality the possibility of it has to exist first- and the less support one can build for something, the more into the realm of wordplay and philosophy pandering it gets... And thats kind of the crux is with the whole immoveable rock deal is that there is little beyond "its possible because we dont know everything yet" to anchor it to reality or give it plausibility and so it ends up being no more than a word game (in this case a logic paradox loop) hypothetical.
 
As for me personally while i would not rule against it 100% i would go 99.9999..... Repeating for a lot of decimal places.
 
------ edit just saw your last reply to me..... This doesnt really add anything new then, other than maybe stating that infinity is not absolute and can be approached in different ways or can be subjective.
 
 

Rather than taking offense, would it not be more appropriate to feel sorry for the "offender" because you perceive that they are wrong?
If you are hurt by what someone says is that really taking offense, or does it only become being "offended" after you act upon your hurt feelings in a spiritually inappropriate way?
What if the offender speaks the truth?  If Jimmy says you are fat, and you are, can you not be hurt by what he said but also acknowledge it's truth and choose your reaction?  The wicked take the truth to be hard right?
I'm fairly confident that there is nearly always (if not always) an alternative reaction to an event rather than being offended.  I can't imagine Christ being offended (such as we use the term) I can however imagine him acting with righteous indignation and taking appropriate action based on the situation.
I usually imagine those who are offended to be attempting to take advantage of the situation.  (i.e. someone who is offended and chooses not to come to church as a result - even though they probably wont see it this way - is taking advantage of the situation and using it as an excuse to not do something they already know they should be doing)  There may be a better way to word that but hopefully no one will take offense ;-)

@Blackmarch I think I misread your initial response.  If your intention was to convey that in order for the immovable rock to be a possibility it would need to be within the realm of possibilities then we are in complete agreement and I apologise for thinking you were saying that the reality of the immovable rock is real and required regardless.

So here's a crazy thought!
What if God is not actually omniscient at all, but instead he uses a massive self building supercomputer with an ever growing number of processing cores and celestial surveillance equipment that monitors everything at all times and does all the calculations for him, and that any time he acts or teaches based on foreknowledge he is actually just using a GUI to get the knowledge he needs.  Then when he needs to show someone a vision he just gives them access to the the display screen on his supercomputer for a brief moment.  He can be god and let his PC do all the work for him!  Or is it a Mac? 
#DontDrinkCoffee

I have always paid tithing.  I will always pay tithing.  Tithing is 10%, if someone pays less than 10% they are giving an offering (which is still good) but are not paying tithing. The word tithing inherently represents 10%.
It is definitely true that church funds have in the past been used illegitimately.  There have been local bishops and others who have taken the funds, but who have been dealt with according to the appropriate disciplinary action.  There was even a time when the U.S. government confiscated church owned property paid for by tithing.  However, while individuals may corrupt the use of tithing, the church and it's leadership as a whole uses and allocates the funds with the guidance of the spirit in order to help the church achieve the objectives of the Lord.
The Church is currently estimated to have between 80-100 billion USD in total assets worldwide.  Many people scoff at this because there are members living in extreme poverty who still pay tithing yet the church has great funds and in theory could help them by re-distributing the funds in a different manner.  However, this is an area where members must exercise faith.  Tithing is not really about money, it is about trusting in the Lord.
That being said $80-100 billion is not even close to what the church needs in the long run.  Consider this:  The Church teaches that the literal location of Zion, The New Jerusalem, will be in Jackson County, MO.  If one were to take this literally then at some point the church would need to be able to take complete ownership, whether gradually or all at once. I recently did the calculation of what the cost would be to purchase all residential homes in Jackson County, MO at current market value.  The estimated cost came to roughly $46 billion.  That is only residential homes, not businesses or other types of property.    I am not saying that this is what will happen exactly, but the Church does not have anywhere close to enough resources if this were to be the Lord's plan.
I will continue paying my tithing because I trust in the general leadership of the church to allocate the funds appropriately with the guidance of the spirit.  However, each of us must pray to receive the answer on our own.

In the scientific community intelligence is define by the ability to learn and change behavior or outcome.  I see your definition of “unpredictable” as the opposite of what I see as intelligent.   I believe intelligence is very predictable – If I think of something as being unpredictable – I believe that to be more the definition of stupidity not intelligence. 
In general – I believe goodness, compassion, love, honor and other attributes of light and truth all to be predictable.  I also believe evil, hate, selfishness and pride also to be very predictable.  What I do not understand – is not so much your ideas of randomness but where and how you came to such conclusions.  But if I were to think of something unorganized – I would think that such would be more associated with evil or something not intelligent (stupid).  I see intelligence as something that has organization and therefore is predictable.
I see everything that exist being “governed” by law.  That which is subject to law is defined and “under” that law and thus predictable.  In the D&C we are told there is no space in which there is no Kingdom and there is no kingdom where there is no law.  I honestly believe that you think something to be random because you do not understand the law by which it is governed? 
It may be all my problem – but I do not understand how you have come to the conclusion of unpredictability. 
 
The Traveler

I'm new here, I'll try and remember next time 
I'm not a programmer by profession, but I enjoy the logic of programming and have written a couple of basic utility apps in the google play store.  I haven't programmed a single line of code in over 6 months though  need to develop my talents!
I was going to say that but i figured someone else would anyway ! However, the combinations can only be unlimited if the variables are also unlimited.
As for the rest, well, I pretty much agree with your entire post.
I also agree that @Traveler makes a compelling point, but (without going into a ton of details since i'm at work) if you take into consideration the idea that our agency is in actuality a gift from God, then there is still no bearing upon his omnipotence.  Do all of God's creations have agency?  If he gives us the ability to choose does that actually make him any less powerful or does it mean that he is so powerful that he has the ability to create something which is capable of disobeying him?  If once you give agency to a creation the ability to force that creation to choose something does not exist, then is there really a power which you are lacking?  If you are not lacking in any existing power then are you not all powerful?  I think most of what makes the argument of agency = God is not omnipotent is a similar construct to the immovable rock conundrum, albeit very astute!

I'm new here, I'll try and remember next time 
I'm not a programmer by profession, but I enjoy the logic of programming and have written a couple of basic utility apps in the google play store.  I haven't programmed a single line of code in over 6 months though  need to develop my talents!
I was going to say that but i figured someone else would anyway ! However, the combinations can only be unlimited if the variables are also unlimited.
As for the rest, well, I pretty much agree with your entire post.
I also agree that @Traveler makes a compelling point, but (without going into a ton of details since i'm at work) if you take into consideration the idea that our agency is in actuality a gift from God, then there is still no bearing upon his omnipotence.  Do all of God's creations have agency?  If he gives us the ability to choose does that actually make him any less powerful or does it mean that he is so powerful that he has the ability to create something which is capable of disobeying him?  If once you give agency to a creation the ability to force that creation to choose something does not exist, then is there really a power which you are lacking?  If you are not lacking in any existing power then are you not all powerful?  I think most of what makes the argument of agency = God is not omnipotent is a similar construct to the immovable rock conundrum, albeit very astute!

I agree with you. There is another way to phrase your logic above:
It is possible to construct a semantically valid expression that nevertheless has no meaning. These sound like sentences that carry actual meaning, but they are actually devoid of meaning. Your example of whether God can "create a rock so big he can't lift it" (to use the standard phrasing) is an example. The Book of Mormon itself gives us another sterling example of a semantically correct yet meaningless arrangement of words: "Salvation in sin". Another example is "sinful God". Or "Satanic charity". We could play this game all day. The dangerous part is that people think that, since the words parse in a semantically valid manner, they must actually mean something.
In my view, this has been one of Satan's great tools throughout human history: To create a self-negating turn of phrase, then insist that it actually means something real and build a philosophy atop literally nothing.
But why do we fall for such cheap and easy tricks? How stupid are we, really? The answer is not stupidity per se. I see two things that explain our seeming stupidity:
Innocent ignorance. The teachings of the gospel ask us to accept a lot of things that we have no direct experience with, and that may sound pretty vacuous at first. For example, "premortal existence" sound like "non-existent existence" to many or most people. This is the common condition of humanity. How many scientific principles are we asked or even expected to accept without really understanding them? Even when they appear counterintuitive? So we have learned to suspend our disbelief; otherwise, we would never be able to learn new things. But this very trait of accepting the seemingly unreasonable can (obviously) come back to bite us. Willful ignorance. This is a consequence of the natural man. How many religious people have justified themselves in sin by saying, explicitly or implicitly, "It's OK, because I can always repent later"? How much easier is it to justify eating that greaseburger or sleeping with that hot girl because you really, really want to? And thus Satan binds us with flaxen cords until we have lost our freedom and are at his mercy -- a non-existent mercy when dealing with such an utterly ruthless being.

If you are even 1 percent a direct blood descendant of a tribe of Israel then you do not have to be adopted into the house of Israel at all.  Does your patriarchal blessing (if you have received it) indicate you are adopted into the house of Israel or does it simply state the tribe from which you are descended?
On a side note, I am approximately a 50% blood descendant of Ishmael.  My father is Arab from the Jerusalem/Jordan area.  On my mothers side I have European ancestry and presume to be gentile with the possibility of mixing in the distant past.  That being said, my patriarchal blessing identifies me as a descendant of the tribe of Ephraim and does not mention adoption, however, I have no idea if blood ancestry is through mixing in my fathers history or mothers. (I have known others who are specifically identified in their patriarchal blessings as being adopted into the house of Israel)

I would encourage you to consider the repercussions of rejecting the answer, and consider why you are questioning what to do in the first place.
If the question is, for example, "should I accept x persons marriage proposal?" and you receive a "no", what could come about by rejecting it?  Perhaps you really  like this person, you are compatible in every currently known way, you are truly in love.  Perhaps the lord knows that this person has or will develop an addiction that you will not be able to fully handle and he is protecting you as is understood from the teaching of paul to the corinthians:
If the question is, on the other hand, "should I eat the week old leftover pizza to save money on groceries?" perhaps the lord is aware that the pizza will make you ill which will cost you money in medical expenses.  Or possibly you are already overweight and it will contribute to some additional depression.  Its also possible that it will simply cause you bad gas and a few hours of unnecessary pain.
Obviously these are really random examples, however, I encourage you to consider Joseph Smith's experience with the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon which we no longer have today.  Martin Harris's wife, Lucy, was concerned/curious about his involvement with the translation of the plates.  Martin requested to take the pages to his wife.  The Lord repeatedly told Joseph "No!", however, Joseph continued to ask after being pressured.  Eventually the Lord said, "yes, but with conditions", however, He already knew that those conditions would not be met by Martin Harris, which is why he had said no in the first place.  As a result of not heeding the Lords answer of No, the entire body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has zero access to the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon (presumed to be the book of Lehi and/or other writings).
There is never a time when you will be worse off spiritually as the result of heeding the Lords council.  All council from the Lord is spiritual:
It is always possible that the end result of not following the Lords council in a particular situation will be minor or not problematic over the long term.  However, it is not usually worth a gamble to find out.

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"
Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.
There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?
The short answer is: NO.
In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.
To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.
I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.
I could go on and on but in conclusion:
1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).
2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

From Handbook 2:
Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)
The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

I do not comprehend this idea that in order for one being to have all power, all other beings must have no power.  That's like saying in order for one being to have all knowledge, all other beings must have no knowledge.  Power is not a limited resource (a material object of which there is a finite amount and thus to have all everyone else must have none) any more than knowledge is.  The logic doesn't follow.  If I have the power to pick up a rock, that doesn't mean no one else can.  We can all have the power to pick up a rock without any of us being diminished.  I believe it is not possible to be omniscient without also being omnipotent.  I believe omnipotent means you have the power to do all that can be done, and that it is a logical consequence of being omniscient.

Just because one doesn't want the government to be the ones helping the poor and needy doesn't mean one doesn't want to help the poor and needy.  Nor does it mean one isn't already helping the poor and needy.  Those I know who don't want the government to pretend to be a charitable organization don't find fault with honest individuals receiving benefits through government programs, rather, they find fault with the inefficient government programs riddled with corruption and administered to hold down rather than raise up, and with a culture which encourages its citizens to pawn their personal responsibility to care for the poor and needy off on government programs.  Further, I submit that to personally care for the poor and needy requires more true charity than to contribute (willingly or not) to government programs.
(Are there people who don't want either (as in, don't want government programs, and don't want to be charitable)?  Of course.  But that doesn't preclude the existence of individuals who don't want government programs, and who do live charitable lives.  I do not comprehend why that concept is so hard for some to grasp.)

I neither said nor assumed he was rejecting the answer, just that he should consider the repercussions of doing so.  The main point of that portion of my statement was to consider why he is questioning what to do in the first place.
While it is possible he is struggling with disappointment or sincerely curious, the lack of response to further clarify the OP and at least minor details regarding the specifics of the inquiry or at least the topic of inquiry, any help to deal with those issues would merely be a guessing game as can be seen from Carborendum's response.
We are all just guessing here at what the issue is and providing advice based on generics or possibilities.
Just because he has received the answer and has recognized it does not mean he has accepted it.  Many times family members have come to me after receiving personal revelation that she didn't like and, while acknowledging the answer received, rejected it until further evidence or persuasive experiences came down the road from other sources.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the question, I do not believe I asserted otherwise.
While I do not assume this is necessarily the case it is always possible that the he wants to find a way out of the answer he received (or believes he received), and that may or may not be the right course of action.
Side Thought: What if his question was to ask if the BOM is true? I'm sure the responses would be very different from everyone ;-)