Stargazer

I take this to refer to the Pre-existence, not mortal life. I say this because their spirits were the workmanship of His hands. Their mortal bodies were the workmanship of their mortal parents. Even though one might argue that the original mortal workmanship (Adam and Eve) was the Lord, the immediate workmanship was not. The knowledge conferred upon them is what they were taught as pre-existent spirits. It is my feeling that we are not born tabula rasa, but that we do bring with us knowledge whose origin we do not know, or even recognize as brought knowledge. For one thing, we bring with us the Light of Christ, which enables us to recognize truth, however disguised by man's distortions. In the Garden of Eden is where God gave man his agency -- if not, how could Eve have chosen to partake of the forbidden fruit, with Adam to follow her example? Of course. Otherwise, how would it be possible for them to rebel?

It's one of those "unwritten rules." 5 years for bishop, 10 years for stake president. Well, it might be written in some unpublicized manual, but not one that I am aware of. Long time ago, a new bishop or stake president could expect to stay in that calling for a really long time, potentially for the rest of their life. When Spencer W. Kimball's father, Andrew Kimball, was called as president of the St. Joseph Stake based in Thatcher, Arizona, in 1898, he spent the rest of his life in Arizona, serving as stake president for 26 years. He didn't live there when he was called, but moved there in order to fulfill the calling.

Volumes? Here's your volume: I didn't get anything else out of it because I didn't read it. Calling someone's idea idiotic right out of the starting gate does not tend to engender feelings of goodwill or help build a desire to open one's heart to the accuser's thoughts on the matter. You'll pardon me if I have decided not to participate in this particular conversation any further. Not because of you, precisely, but because after all the senseless violence going on I am finding it hard to approach it with sufficient dispassion. For example, this post grew to several hundred words before I decided I had had enough of the whole thing.

I've submitted your wife to the London Temple prayer roll. Not knowing her name, I put it in as Navidad's Wife. I'm sure the Lord knows who she is.

Believe it or not, it has improved over the past year. I used to get so frustrated with it that I would use Bing or Google to find what I wanted. During this conference I've been able to find what I needed during the sessions using the church search, however. A year or so ago I submitted a "bug report" about this to the tech folks. Got a response saying to be patient; they were working on it.

900,000 converts in the past 36 months? Wow! Wish some of them were in my ward. I'd love to know the geographical distribution.

I agree, but Elder Cziesla's stirred me greatly, too. On the other hand, I don't know if the Lord wants two Germans in the Q12 at the same time. Both of them were only called as General Authority Seventies in April, so may not be seen as having sufficient experience. Fortunately, the Lord is in charge, so my opinion is irrelevant!

In Michael Ash's book Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author, he wrote: "Once we recognize how humans participate in the revelatory process, we can better comprehend how some revelations can be both divinely inspired as well as humanly deficient and how prophets may act as co-authors to the scriptures they give to the world. To fully grasp this concept, however, requires that we “reconstruct the narrative” (to borrow Bushman’s phrase) when understanding how God communicates with His children." Which tends to reflect what you've said here. But one must also remember that who is selected as President of the Church depends entirely upon God's veto. If God didn't want Oaks as President, he wouldn't be there to become such.

I would depend on how different it is, wouldn't it? While can easily imagine a difference of opinion on policy, policy is not the gospel, and I cannot imagine apostles having much of a difference of opinion on Jesus Christ and His atonement.

Pretty cool video! I've visited the Gadfield Elm chapel myself when my brother and sister-in-law came over for a visit a few years ago.

I don't have a problem with that. Title is pretty long, as it is...

So far, $61,000 has been raised on a goal of $100,000. Link is: https://www.givesendgo.com/helptheSanfordfamily

Irrespective of any greater propensity for violence, I'm going to go out on a limb and hark back 100 years and more. In fact, all the way back. Transgenderism was an outlier, close to unknown. Ultimately a nothingburger. But Satan has obviously been working overtime to do everything possible to destroy civilization and Father's work here on earth, as the time for the Lord's return approaches. And this transgenderism epidemic is one result. It is anti-human. It is also quite pernicious, because even the very elect seem to be deceived in regards to it. The leading councils of the Church saw this coming before 1995. This is why the Proclamation on the Family was issued. From Sheri Dew's book, "Insights From a Prophet's Life": One day in 1994, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spent a day in their council room in the Salt Lake Temple discussing issues surrounding the family. They considered everything from the increasingly ubiquitous nature of pornography to potential anti-family legislation of various kinds. This was not a new discussion, but that day the entire agenda revolved around this one vital topic. The Twelve reviewed both doctrine and policies, considering those things that could not be changed—doctrine—and those things that possibly could be—policies. They discussed issues they saw coming, including an intensified societal push for gay marriage and transgender rights. “But that was not the end of what we saw,” Elder Nelson explained. “We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming.” This extended discussion, along with others over a period of time, led to the conclusion that the Twelve should prepare a document, perhaps even a proclamation, outlining the Church’s stand on the family to present to the First Presidency for consideration. “It [the proclamation] was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and family were well understood without restatement,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks would later detail in a general conference address. “Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year” (Oaks, “The Plan”). Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (pp. 251-252). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. When President Hinckley introduced the Proclamation, in a General Relief Society meeting in September 1995, he said: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family” Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (p. 253). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. Call me an intolerant Neanderthal. Call me an idiot (thanks @Benjamin McGuire). But the transgender movement is anti-human. It is anti-Christian. It is, as President Hinckley said, a "stain." I have compassion for those few who actually suffer from the mental/emotional disorder called gender dysphoria (and I know a couple), but I refuse to bow to the demands of those who use it for self-promotion, -aggrandizement, and other anti-social purposes. I don't know what else to say about this.

Exactly my point. I'm on the side of Athanasius here. Romans 8:14-17 - 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. If we were not the children of God, wouldn't He have told us? If we were not a special creation of His, would he not have said so? But He continually calls Himself our Father. Granted that He talks also of our subordination and of our unworthiness, but can the sacred blood of Christ's Atonement not overcome these things in the end? Famous Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote of this: “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship…. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another… There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal….” C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory, pgs. 45-46)

OK, I'm an idiot.

I think it may be something to study, given the recent mass violence committed by transgenders. They've already certainly studied murders of transgender persons, of which there have been too many. The standard talk in certain circles is that if we don't let everyone with gender dysphoria express themselves openly and if we don't support their delusion, then they will delete themselves. If that is true, then they are definitely dangerous to themselves. As for dangerous to others... "Chosen identity"? Whatever does that mean? If a man chooses to become or identify as a KKK member then do you think that he might be significantly more likely to commit violence? How about choosing the identity of Antifa? As for sexual identity, with certain rare exceptions, people are born male or female. One cannot become the opposite from one's birth sex. One can certainly decide to present as the opposite, but this changes appearances only. And now, in our misguided attempts to be uber-tolerant, it is now illegal in Canada to misgender someone. Nowadays, more people are arrested in the UK for social media posts than apparently in Russia. This usually involves offending people by disrespecting Islam, transgenders, immigrants of both kinds, and saying bad words.

Ah, yes. Thanks. Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?

There's certainly no literal scriptural evidence for it. But can we not use scripture to find the possibility? The question of the nature of God is very deep. Saying that God has always existed and that there was never a time when God didn't exist means that there is no beginning and no end. What is the point of time, then? But Genesis itself contradicts this, saying that there was a beginning. A beginning only of the Earth, and God Himself didn't have a beginning? He was always there? And one day, for lack of anything better to do, he created the Earth? Whatever for? And having created the Earth, why then did God create Man? Surely the Self-Existent One has no need of creations at all? Let alone a lesser creation that was made to worship Him? Athanasius himself had an answer: "For He was made man that we might be made God." As I understand it, Athanasius formulated his creed (if it was indeed he himself who formulated it) in such wording as it was written in order to make possible the result of that sentence. For, if Christ was not fully God (as well as fully mortal) when upon the Earth, how could He make us like Him in the end? Perhaps Athanasius was inspired by Paul when the latter wrote: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16,17) As joint-heirs, it thus appears that ultimately we can be raised up to become like Him, as also John wrote: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2) Athanasius seems to have postulated that God made Man because He wanted more beings like Himself. Why? Latter-day Saints say He did this because it is His work and His glory. (Moses 1:39) And if we are raised up to be like Him, to partake of His divine nature, why then could we not also take up His work, as Jesus himself asked his parents after they lost him in Jerusalem: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?" Should we not then, ultimately, be about our Father's business (i.e. creating as He created) once we have been made partakers of His divine nature? And if we be about our Father's business, could it not be that He is also about His Father's business? Yes, yes, I know: Heresy! Why bother calling us His children, then? There is, from your point of view, a slight problem with this, since according to the consensus of Nicaea, there are three in one, and we aren't at all like Him in any way. But in that case, how can we be joint-heirs with that, since we are merely one? I'm sure you know that Latter-day Saints reject the Trinitarian idea that came out of Nicaea, an idea which is not supported in scripture (unless contorted unmercifully). Imagine, all that effort just to keep God safely monotheistic.

I found intriguing the idea that Jesus might have been giving some leeway to prophets two millennia thence, that of knowing the day and the hour. But not the ones that were around in his time.

Oddly enough, as cosmopolitan as I am, I was not aware that "You are entitled to your opinion" has baggage, other than its plain meaning. So I am not as cosmopolitan as I thought. I shall take note of your less encumbered alternative. I like "Of course, you may imagine any old thing you like." Or "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

Might as well post some drone footage here... drone videoing is my outdoor hobby.

That sounds interesting. I wonder how well that would work? We have two cats. The bedroom door is almost always open at night. Both of them eventually come in and sleep with us. Next to the window is where the wife keeps a few things piled up, with a cloth covering over it. I call it the "cat platform" because one or both of them will sleep on it. "Caramel," the girl tabby, prefers to sleep between my wife's feet (she sleeps on her back, something I can't do). "Spock," the boy black and white, sometimes snuggles up with Caramel, either on the cat platform or with my wife. But he also sleeps sometimes in the living room. Neither of the cats are very vocal. Caramel almost never meows. Spock's meow sounds like he's got a very sore throat; and I haven't heard him meow in at least a year. Maybe more. Spock usually comes to bed last, and likes to walk all over us for awhile, angling for some petting. He's also very insistent upon breakfast, so at around 6 am or even earlier he will come to my wife and smack her on the face to wake her up (she normally wakes up at 6 am anyway, so no big deal, usually). And he purrs like a 427 cu in Corvette engine. He never bothers me, and certainly doesn't smack me on the face. For one thing, and very inexplicably, he is very scared of me. He'll walk on me at night sometimes, but other wise he will run if I enter a room he's in. It's so weird, but I think it's because I almost stepped on him one night when he was parked on dark rug and I had to get up in the middle of the night.

You're asking questions. Good! I would like to know your thoughts on a few things, so may I ask you some? These are not the seeds of later "gotchas;" I am simply curious. I realize that I may be asking you to speculate! A. The nature of the Universe: Considering the universe as observed from Earth, do you feel that it is as extensive as scientific observation has concluded, namely that the observable universe together with all the stars/suns/galaxies is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter as seen from Earth, and these objects are real and may have planets similar to those in our solar system? Or do you feel that the observed universe is a backdrop that does not represent real objects, or in other words, it's largely a light-show for our benefit? B. Origin and timing of the creation of souls. I assume that you don't believe in the pre-existence of souls/spirits. Do you feel that souls come into being from nothing at the moment of conception, and that God waits for conception before creating a soul? Or does God keep a supply of souls on hand, not yet conscious, for use when babies are conceived? C. What of those who did not live in a time or place where they had the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ? In other words, are those ignorant of Jesus Christ going to hell? Open question for you, as I have read many responses to this from many different denominations. Just curious what your take is on it. Many of the responses I have read allow for ignorance on the topic.

How else should I state it that would make you believe I think you're opinion has merit, but I have my doubts about it? I disagree with you, but I can't tell you whether you're right or wrong. The Jeremiah verse does seem to suggest pre-existence, and I think it does. But Jesus's response to the apostles when they asked if the man was born blind because of his or his parents' sin, whereby he didn't say they were wrong to assume the man could have sinned before birth or conception, but left it the way they asked it, is a better indication of pre-existence. This is my opinion, which you or anyone else is entitled to disagree with. And to tell me that I am wrong. If I wanted to say it the way you want to take it, I would not say it the way you suggest. I would tell you that you are flat out wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth.