zil2

After perusing, it appears they do, but also that it's a "new" decision. Not sure how long they've been doing it, but OK. I wonder if there's a style guide somewhere...

The Church does this?

Hmm. Sounds sort of like this:

Yeah, but we don't really know what "intelligence" means here. Is "intelligence" IQ, smarts, intel, knowledge, a mass of raw material infused into spirits on their creation, an attribute of eternal spirit-beings, or sentient beings with free will, or non-sentient beings who don't gain sentience until fused into a spirit body, or....? There are places where "spirit" and "intelligence" are used interchangeably and other places where they seem to be distinct from one another, places where intelligence seems to be an entity and places where it seems to be an attribute. I submit that we simply do not have enough clearly revealed information about anything prior to our lives as spirit children of God. Without said clearly revealed information, we are filling in the voids with logic, imagination, and error.

I believe there is a literal interpretation to the above. I suspect the "light" being described is not (only) the light our mortal eyes see. My imagination comes up with all of us connected by a network of light - like a (literally) glorified fiber optic network without need for the cables. (My imagination likes to visualize things - and make things up out of whole cloth.) Everywhere you see "truth", you could replace it with "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" and see if that sheds any (ahem) light for you. D&C 88 and 93 have a lot of stuff that instinctively make sense, but which I have a hard time deciphering... Go figure.

Maybe she was playing an early April Fool's joke!

The rest of the Christian world can spend their time memorizing John 3:16, I prefer verse 17: But don't let Satan lull you into believing the condemnation won't come eventually. It's just that now is not the time for it. The end of the Millennium is the time for it. Say what!?

Nor their good works. OK. We are all foolish and ignorant in various ways and at various times. We should not mistake the flaws and limitations of the members of the Church for the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. FTR, those other churches aren't "celestial" (how can they be without the ordinances that lead to exaltation?) - they seem to be teaching things that are terrestrial in nature. As far as I can recall, it's only their creeds God has labeled abomination. (Klaw is on the verge of declaring my typing an abomination, which, if not stopped, will reap desolation, or a least a firm biting on the arm.) Don't forget that we have the entire rest of time through the end of the Millennium to gather Israel and provide those "exclusive" celestial ordinances to all who will receive them. Just as the law of Moses was to prepare a people to receive the Lord at his first coming, so too, I expect, the laws, ordinances, and covenants of Christ's Church are to prepare a people to receive him at his Second Coming. I would expect us to be blessed with more commandments and possibly more covenants during the Millennium. The pointer is always to Christ and through him to exaltation in the kingdom of God in heaven - celestial glory (whatever that means). That others may feel or find their way closer without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their mortal lives does not mean they can make it all the way without the ordinances decreed by God - were that the case, we would not be doing proxy work in our temples. It isn't God being exclusive, it's his children using their agency and free will to choose for themselves the eternity they want - the laws they are willing to abide. (See your other thread! ) Jesus Christ will not turn away anyone who comes to him. He will lead them as far as they're willing to go. In my experience, he is the very definition of patient and merciful. Just because someone hasn't received the witness of the Spirit regarding the restored Gospel at this moment, that does not mean we can or should give up on them, nor that God has, nor that they will not eventually find their way into the required covenants and ordinances. (To think otherwise would be to exercise judgement which is God's alone. Check out this GC talk from last October.)

Shift it back, brother. Here's what the Lord himself said: The Lord himself "wrote" this section of the D&C, so let's not suggest that Jesus Christ did not know what he was talking about. Don't know any sane person who suggested otherwise. Even God didn't do that: Clearly the Lord expects us to seek out learning from wherever we can find it (as well as from him). Yes, it is wholly true that: No other church on the earth has the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, nor his ordinances and covenants. I submit that this person didn't follow the instructions (or see my text below the link): Some of us don't want the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, some of us aren't ready for it yet or like to do things the hard way (and maybe need to experience evil longer before we can recognize the good), and some of us love Satan more than God. (And whatever other combination of variables I'm not thinking of.) Jesus Christ does not send people (other than Satan and his minions) away, ever. (Explicit verses above, but the scripture are full of little else than Christ inviting people to come unto him. He will let them come as far and via whatever convoluted or tortured path they choose, but they are always invited to come fully unto him, and that path is not complete until one has entered into the House of the Lord, received ordinances, made covenants, and then kept those covenants to the end.)

One of the other folk on this forum recently pointed me to this fabulous challenge issued back in 1983 GC by Elder McConkie: You could invite your brother to join you in this adventure.

The fact that the universe exists is proof that it (or at least the matter of which it is made and the space in which it exists) has always existed. Because neither nothing, nor nowhere can exist. (Of course, I could be all wrong.)

These people seem to only see what the Church does and fail to see what it does not do. The teachings of the Church have not changed in my lifetime (I'm over 50). (period. full stop. the end.) Policies may have changed. Member attitudes may have changed. The gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church has not changed. If people think, for example, that the Church has changed its thinking on sex or gender or marriage and that one day anyone will be able to marry be sealed in the temple of God to anyone without regard to sex or gender, those people do not understand the gospel or biology or God. (I will happily hang my soul on that truth.) Faith must always be in Jesus Christ in order to have any redemptive power. But make no mistake, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth. It is Jesus Christ's one and only church. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are as much the word of God as the Bible (if not more so), and make no mistake, they are the word of God. And Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of God. These are some of the truths that came with me through the veil. Of them I am more certain than of the keyboard I'm typing on or the kitty telling me to quit typing.

Yep, same page. Here's Nibley (Approaching Zion, Chapter 3 "Zeal Without Knowledge") quoting Joseph Smith: (Nibley expands my brain like no other mortal I've ever read.) A lot of people read that as " truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" - but the "knowledge of" part sorta changes the meaning. (Of course, given Jacob's statement, you can't blame folks for dropping the "knowledge of" - maybe it's not so important as it seems to me. See my final sentence.) God has placed "truth" into spheres. I expect one could spend hours dissecting and rearranging and diagramming above verses and come away knowing no more than they started. Only the Spirit can teach a person what the above means. But that and the D&C 19 verses I quoted cause me to not hold too tightly to anything I think I know. Yes, I still hold tightly to some things - things that, as far as I can tell, came with me through the veil - but if God tells me something that adjusts my understanding, well, as the one in control of my sphere, I'm not going to argue that what he's doing is contrary to "eternal truth". I don't think we're back at that idea - I reject it and Joseph Smith plainly taught that it's not true. Nevertheless (verse 12): You could dissect the life out of that one for years. Reading these things makes me feel dumb as a post. Want to know what it's saying? Seek the Spirit, because I think our language is so ridiculously flawed and incapable that it's a wonder we can ever comprehend anything of God.

I feel sorry for everyone involved. But I also feel strongly that those who witness a crime (truly witness it) should come forward and state what they saw and heard. I feel even more strongly that if the state is abusing its authority (and it has been suggested here that it is), it is everyone's business and everyone who has direct knowledge should speak up. And finally, I feel strongly that one should not abandon a brother to abuse for a supposed policy (or any other reason short of God himself telling you to keep your mouth shut). (And yes, brother shouldn't have been committing criminal acts in the first place, but please consult King Benjamin for what to do with that thought. )

I'm not convinced of this. I think our "intelligence" and ability to make decisions (aka free will) predates our spirit (probably, but I acknowledge we really don't know anything about "intelligences"). I believe agency is: 1. A gift from God: 2. That the proper term is "moral agency": 3. See above verse again - that agency is accountability for our own sins - it's like if a celebrity (athlete, actor, author) hires an agent to represent them. The agent has the power and authority to act in their client's name. In our case, we can either be agents unto ourselves (acting in our own name and interests and reaping the "natural" rewards of our actions) or we can be agents of Jesus Christ (taking his name upon ourselves, and acting in his name and interests, and receiving the rewards he has for us). (See also D&C 93:29-32.) I could be all wrong, and in scripture, sometimes will and agency appear to be used interchangeably, but in my mind, the ability to make decisions (will) is distinct from agency (accountability), but both are dependent upon knowledge and opposition. Many have speculated that Joseph must have been referring to the "intelligence" rather than the spirit, because we are spirit children of God (described in some places as "begotten") - which implies we existed in some other form prior to becoming spirit children of God - namely, the "intelligence" form. [Lately, I have wondered if we aren't making way too many assumptions about these things (what it means to be a "spirit child of God"; the intelligence > spirit > mortal > resurrected immortal sequence; that "intelligence" is a state of being (presumably the one that preexisted the other forms - though I wonder, if that is the case, might there be a form that preceded "intelligence"?); etc.). I'm wondering these things because reading the supporting scriptures doesn't necessarily paint the simple, consistent picture that we often use in the Church.] I think that if our sentient self existed in some form (which we have been calling "an intelligence") prior to becoming a spirit (as a child of heavenly parents), then that form was more than a self-existing will - it was a person, a self-aware entity not so different from the "person" we are today, just made of something different - matter more fine even than spirit matter? Energy? Something. If, on the other hand, we did not become sentient until we were begotten sons and daughters of heavenly parents, then I'd say our "intelligence" could be anything from an independent entity to be merged into said spirit to a mass of raw material from which God drew to create that spirit. (Your argument that we had to have always been sentient because otherwise I don't really have free will, I only have whatever God gave me, seems sound. I think despite D&C 93, I could make an argument that we don't have evidence of man's eternal sentience and free will - that believing in these is only assumption or deduction.) Yep and yep. I'd say these are true regardless of what "intelligences" are, and regardless of whether we always had sentience or gained it at some point. "Eternal" truth is God's truth. I smile, but I'm quite serious. I think we're all dumb as posts compared to God and don't stand much chance of figuring out which of all the things we "know" are still going to be the "same" once we know as much as God knows (assuming we ever do). I'm with you on all that, but I would use "will" where you use "agency". I think the best argument for our eternal sentience and will is the simple fact that sentience and will exist at all. How could a non-sentient being without will (or a non-sentient mass of intelligence or whatever) become or produce a sentient being? I argue it could not. The sentience and will had to have existed all along or there would never have been action or decision or sentience. (This is one of those "eternity past" things that's impossible to wrap your head around, but it's also self-evident - sentience and free will are the natural initial state of all intelligent beings - they cannot be created because one of them already exists. The only way around that is to argue the sectarian notion of a self-existing God who is the only self-existing entity - but we've rejected that notion. The moment we claim to be the same species as God, or claim to be co-eternal with God, and claim that God was once as we are, we have no option other than: everyone is eternal and must have always been sentient and had free will.) I think your premise is as sound as the average mortal can make. Whether someone closer to God can make a better premise, I couldn't guess (not being them myself), but yours seems reasonable.

I know. Like I said, it's the closest I could find. My conclusion as well.

These are the closest thing I could find, and the second doesn't seem in favor of this whole "don't let missionaries be witnesses" thing (though only by implication). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p205#p205 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p222#p222 IMO, the missionaries should decide whether or not to come forward (and IMO, they should, if they actually witnessed the events in question). Is it possible to bear false witness by keeping your mouth shut? I wouldn't want that question lingering in my soul until I die. ETA: Scratch that question. IMO, that hymn I posted answers my question:

Maybe we need an ordinary rendition, too (I couldn't find a version with all seven verses - it should be a crime not to sing all seven every time ) :

I have real problems with this policy and the whole "be good citizens" thing our Church teaches. ETA: For that matter, I have issues with it and the whole "tell the truth" thing and the "be kind" thing, and I could go on but why. Good luck to you, @askandanswer. Don't envy your position.

And it seems to me there'd be nothing to make you go "hmm" if you just told the truth as you know it. The complication here seems entirely to surround "how do I not tell the full truth and feel good about that decision?" Is your legal system such that witnesses need to fear? I mean, I can make up all sorts of negative possibilities, but they all require either hypocrisy on the part of the Church or serious corruption on the part of your legal system. Don't envy the circumstances you've painted.

Then how is the statement other than a lie?

I'm so sorry, @000Zero000. I have no experience that might let me counsel you, but I'm sorry. It sounds like you're a really good dad and dealing with a really, really difficult situation. I hope you're able to get some relief or support somehow. Remember, our Savior knows what you're going through and Heavenly Father will always listen - even to ranting. (Your post doesn't read like that, though - it just reads like a loving father who's exhausted and trying to do his best.) I will pray for you and your family.

Like I said, if this is the case, how does one remain silent in good conscience? (I'm not talking about you, necessarily, I'm talking about the witnesses. If they have something to add to the case, they should.) Let the man be punished for the crimes he did commit, not for the prejudices (or whatever) of the police.

I will concede, however, that witnesses don't always know what they saw, don't always remember correctly, and can easily be manipulated by a good attorney. I will further concede that the Lord may have his purposes which I don't know. But on the face of it, I'm having a hard time with the idea of keeping silent if you have testimony that isn't redundant or could be critical. Perhaps @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy can talk some sense into me...