Stargazer

The potential is not still there. In D&C 76:28-38 it is made very clear. One cannot change one's mind about it. One can never be trusted ever again. 33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; 34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come

I wanted to quickly address something else about this. The thing is, we find ourselves sometimes handicapped by the otherwise useful language we use day to day. Consider Matthew 25:46... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. What is rendered here as "punishment" in English covers a lot of ground, but the original koine Greek has two words for the concept, one of which might be felt to be far less harsh. The Greek word Matthew doesn't use here is τιμωρία (timōria). It means retributive, vindicatory punishment. Punishment whose purpose is to satisfy the grievance or honor of the one wronged. The benefit flows to the punisher. The word Matthew does use is κόλασις (kolasis). It means corrective, disciplinary punishment. Punishment whose purpose is the improvement, reform, or correction of the one being punished. The benefit flows to the recipient. As I see it, for what it's worth, kolasis seems to correspond more closely to the Lord's intent -- even if the punishment is still something not to be desired.

No, but in desperation I used them at the last. What the heck were you using for search terms? Or maybe I was using Bing and Google works better? You wouldn't mind telling me where you found this? JoD perhaps? I'd like to read the entire piece this comes from. Since I'm clearly incapable of creating a usable Google search on the matter. And I do thank you for showing this to me -- I find this passage profound and hopeful. Mainly because I have thought about what those of us who are to be exalted might be doing before we reach that level. Or even what those of us who are not counted among those to be exalted, but inherit the Terrestrial kingdom might be doing for their work. When I, as an amateur astrophysicist, look upon what is going on in the universe, I wonder if Father's more advanced children are out there guiding the expansion of the universe, shepherding the stars along their paths, or ensuring that nebulas are coalescing in their proper form so as to form earths upon which other of our Father's children may dwell during their mortal probations. As written in the Book of Moses 1:33-39: 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

You don't think it does? Maybe it doesn't explain anything to you, as a unique individual. But could a mathematical definition do so? Any ideas on that? Sometimes I write a lot of words trying to explain things. I was trying to keep the infinite infinite, but oh, well. We had a skeptic come on board MDDB once upon a time who threw out a bunch of questions that seemed designed to trip up theists. One of those questions was "Can God count to infinity instantaneously?" I answered "God can't count to infinity because infinity can't be reached. Even by God." I know you know what a parable is. I don't know if I have a favorite parable, but one I like is the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. The owner of the vineyard hires workers at various points in the day, promising each of them 1 denarius for pay. At the end, he queued up the later workers ahead of the earlier workers, but when the earlier ones received a denarius for their short duration of labor, the ones who worked all day were expecting more than one denarius. But they all got the same pay, and of course the earlier workers complained. The vineyard owner told them that one denarius is what he contracted with them to receive for the day, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ There are plenty of interpretations of this parable out there. I've even heard it used to justify being anti-labor union. But I feel that the best way to use it in LDS-land is say that whether you were born in the Church and worked in it all your life, or you were baptized at the end of a long life one hour before you died, you would inherit the same reward befitting your valiance in the testimony of Jesus. Or, for that matter, even if you never so much as heard of Jesus Christ until you were in the Spirit World and were one of the last ones reached by the missionaries there, and were baptized by proxy one hour before the end of the Millennium. Ultimately, it's a lot of words that can be meaningless to one person, and profoundly meaningful to another. If you thought my pseudo-mathematical analogy meaningless, so it goes. As for the infinite atonement, we are ill-equipped to understand it at the best of times. Maybe God should have consulted with you for the best way to express it, sans the word "infinite." As for myself, I feel the use of the word "infinite" is appropriate, given the majesty and importance of the Atonement. Does it bother you that God tries to scare you? Why don't you read D&C 19 over again, and tell me if the suffering that Christ describes, that made even HIM want to shrink away from, is something that you should consider lightly? Should you not be scared of it? 15 Therefore I command you to repent — repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit — and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink As you know, this is the same section in which the Lord reveals that "Eternal" and "Endless" punishment doesn't mean it doesn't end, but that it is the punishment that He, as The Eternal or The Endless, must mete out absent repentance. Jesus suffered the same punishment that the unrepentant will have to suffer ("they must suffer even as I"), and it didn't last forever for Him, nor will it for them. But you better believe "your sufferings [will] be sore." Is that not to be avoided? Is it perhaps worth fearing? Or of being scared of? I'd say so, and the warning and the 'scare word' is not at all unjustified. In my humble opinion. Your mileage may differ. But despite the Lord being careful to say that the suffering will not be without end, in one important way the consequences of the suffering will definitely never end. The consequence is that they will have reached the end of their eternal progression. And that end will never end. I know that some have theorized that eventually even those inheriting the telestial kingdom will be able to advance to the terrestrial, and even to the celestial. I believe they are not thinking straight.

He did? Thank you. Snow is well-known for "As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As Now God Is, Man May Be." However, an online search for quotations, or even discussions about quotations regarding "planetary construction and ruling over them" yields nothing. Which seems odd to me, since it seems to me that anti-LDS sites would be happy to showcase such, if they were available. But I can't find any. Perhaps in the Journal of Discourses? Do you have any advice for locating this kind of thing from him? As to "moving the goal posts," what goal posts?

Not quite. There are two aspects of the Atonement: resurrection and justification/sanctification. Resurrection applies to all, both repentant and unrepentant (1 Corinthians 15:22 -> "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."). But jusitification/sanctification applies only to the repentant. I have to disagree with you as to the spirits who remained bodiless (i.e. they who rebelled against Father in preferring Lucifer over Jesus). They are NOT covered by the Atonement, and there is no forgiveness for them, worlds without end. This is because they sinned against knowledge, as if they denied the sun at noonday. But I certainly agree with your language as to the extent of the Atonement.

I don't think the term "infinite" in respect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ can be related to the mathematical term "infinite." Mathematically, infinity is very interesting (and incomprehensible). But the mathematicians stab at it, like in the song "Hotel California, where "They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast." Infinity nearly drove mathematician Georg Cantor insane. He managed to prove some very provocative things about infinity, including that the while the sets of real and natural numbers are both infinite, nevertheless real numbers are more numerous than the natural numbers. But the infinity of Christ's Atonement has nothing to do with mathematical infinity, though I can use it as a teaching tool regarding how it can cover sins infinitely. In my 60 years as a member I have sought to understand the Atonement of Christ. I'm sure I will never reach full understanding in this life. But trying to explain what I feel I do understand takes up a lot of verbiage, and if I were to fully develop the topic here, it would be just a wall of text, and who would actually read it? I've written about this extensively and posted it on my personal website here: The Mathematics of the Atonement of Jesus Christ - Reflections upon Christ's Atonement The Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ - Further reflections upon Christ's Atonement But here's a quick pseudo-mathematical explanation. Amulek taught: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." [Alma 34:9-10 (emphasis added)] There's a special import attached to the word eternal here. In Doctrine and Covenants section 19 the Lord gives a definition of eternal, one which applies especially to Himself and His works. See where the Lord uses the word eternal in the sense that pertains to Himself, in verse 11: "Eternal punishment is God’s punishment." So when it is written in Alma that "it must be an ... eternal sacrifice", we can replace eternal with God's. In other words, the great and last sacrifice must be the sacrifice of a God. And so Christ stands in our place to receive the punishment that we would have received without His intervention and without our repentance. While Christ's Atonement applies to every repentant soul who has or will ever live, each unrepentant soul must atone for his own sins, as stated in D&C 19: 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Christ's Atonement is capable of applying to as many souls as Christ wishes it to apply. Because there is no sin in him, his sacrifice is infinite. And no matter how large the number of those who have sinned may be, his single, infinite sacrifice is enough for all who have faith in him, repent, and sin no more. Mathematically, this might be expressed in this fashion: Because any amount of sin, whether one single act or a lifetime of wickedness, puts you irretrievably into the status of sinner, the number 1 may be used to quantify your sin. Because the suffering that you must endure to atone for yourself is the same for all quantities of sin, the number 1 may be used to quantify your suffering. When you divide your sin into your suffering, as in the mathematical operation of division, the formula looks like: 1 ÷ 1 = 1 In other words, your suffering covers your sin, and you are "at one". Therefore, your personal atonement covers you but no-one else. On the other hand, the amount of sin that is imputed to the Christ during his mortal lifetime was 0. But the suffering that the Christ endured in the act of atonement has the value of 1. When you divide the Christ's sin into Christ's suffering, the mathematical formula could look like: 1 ÷ 0 = Infinity In arithmetic, dividing any quantity by 0 yields a result typically called "undefined", because there is no way for nothing to divide into anything. But if one were to try to divide progressively smaller and smaller values into 1, the result gets mathematically larger and larger. Since one can never progressively reach the calculated value of infinity by making the divisor progressively smaller and smaller, you will never reach the end of the attempt. But in our imagination, we must infer that if we could take it far enough, effectively to zero, then the result would be infinity. Since this is mathematically meaningless, our example breaks down under close scrutiny. But because we not dealing with mathematics, strictly speaking, the example suffices to show what it means to have an infinite atonement. It means that Christ's atonement is sufficient to cover ALL sinners who will repent, regardless of how many that is. And because Christ's suffering was something he could have ended at any time he wished to, without personal impact upon his own status, he demonstrated love beyond measure, both for the Father's plan and for his brothers and sisters. For that he deserves all glory for ever and ever.

In my 60 years of Church membership, I genuinely cannot recall having heard this being taught -- whether one planet, several, or even a galaxy or two. But I do seem to recall hearing some members talking about it. I did a search on the Church website for the phrase "do we get our own planets" and got only one substantive hit in a Newsroom FAQ: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”? See item #12: "No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that 'in my Father’s house are many mansions' (John 14:2)." The Church here seems to directly contradict your claim that the one planet teaching has been "splashed all over pretty authoritative sources going back to Joseph Smith." I am curious if you can falsify the Church's claim that it "does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that 'in my Father’s house are many mansions'".

I liked this song so much that I had to transcribe the lyrics and run them through Google Translate. Spanish: Cuando el mundo pierde calma y el fe quiere temblar, hay palabra eternas que nos vuelven a levantar. Hay respuestas escondidas en las paginas de dios, y el luz que sigue viva hablando corazon. Ven, sigueme. Cristo hoy nos llama otra vez. Entre dudas y tormentas, El nos quia con Su luz y Su poder. Inspiraciones que alimentan el alma y la fe... con Nydia Vera apredemos juntos a escuchar la voz de Aquel que vive hoy y nos vuelve a sostener. Cada historia, cada enseñanza, nos acerca mas a El... porque el Evangelio cambia vidas ayer, hoy y para siempre. Ven sigueme. Hay esperanza en Su verdad... Inspiraciones de Ven, Segueme... un camino de luz, de fe, y eternidad. English: When the world loses its calm and faith begins to waver, there are eternal words that lift us up again. There are answers hidden within God's pages, and a light that remains alive, speaking to the heart. Come, follow Me. Christ calls us again today. Amidst doubts and storms, He guides us with His light and His power. Inspirations that nourish the soul and faith... with Nydia Vera, we learn together to listen to the voice of the One who lives today and sustains us once more. Each story, each teaching, draws us closer to Him... because the Gospel changes lives—yesterday, today, and forever. Come, follow Me. There is hope in His truth... Inspirations from "Come, Follow Me"... a path of light, faith, and eternity. So, it seems that the video series is following along with a presenter, Nydia Vera, and the song was composed especially for the channel. It seems like the music and the video might have been created using that AI song app that @ZealouslyStriving uses.

Here's a new-to-me channel that is actually fairly popular if judging by subscriber count (59.8k), but since it originates in Colombia and is in the Spanish language, it's possibly something that wouldn't come up via the YT algorithm for English-language viewers. But many of their videos have been auto-dubbed into English, so here we go. If you get this video in Spanish and you don't understand the language, hit the "Settings" icon and select the English dubbing. The channel is "Canal Lamanita," or Lamanite Channel! Here's a recent video in their "Come, Follow Me" series. In Spanish, "Ven, Sigueme." The video opens with a song that I found particularly moving. I think the song was written specifically for the channel:

Joseph Smith's work is fringe at best, too, I imagine? Just curious who rejects her radical model? Would it be the same people who reject Joseph Smith? The problem with radical models is that sometimes they turn out to have more relevance than the mainstream models. The history of science, for example, is littered with discredited false theories which at one time were accepted and considered mainstream, but which were replaced by formerly rejected radical models, laughed at by the prevailing authorities.

No doubt Plato felt that theft and murder were wrong, too. Doesn't mean that Jewish and Christian thought borrowed that from Plato. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher as well as a Roman emperor. He once wrote: "The things you think about determine the quality of your mind. Your soul takes on the color of your thoughts." Sounds like something Jesus might have said, doesn't it? It's doubtful that Aurelius was a student of Jewish or Christian literature, so it was probably independently arrived at. Jeremiah was told by God that he pre-existed his conception. Jeremiah predates Plato by a few hundred years. Maybe Plato was studying Jeremiah? Jesus's disciples asked Jesus if a man who had been born blind had sinned before his birth and his blindness was a punishment for that. Jesus did not correct them. Clearly the Jews already believed in pre-existence.

Of course one would proceed! Not long after I returned from my mission I visited my brother and his wife. He was a member of the church but she wasn't, and in fact claimed to be an atheist. I stayed overnight, but in the wee hours of the morning my brother came to wake me. His wife had begun having some serious abdominal issues and had been in a great deal of pain. He had told her that I held the priesthood and could give her a blessing. She was desperate, and consented, so he woke me. Her state of belief didn't matter - it was enough that I had been asked. So I gave her the requested blessing, and almost immediately her problem began to resolve itself. She was finally able to get to sleep after a short time. Did this change her from being an atheist? No, it didn't. But it definitely caused her attitude towards the church to improve. Later, she was instrumental in his return to full activity in the church, and finally, just a year before he died, she herself joined the church, and he baptized her.

Yeah, I guess you have a point about that. One could possibly argue that our own formerly slave-holding society still holds slaves, except that the slavery is used as a punishment for law-breaking. A person sentenced to serve, say, ten years at hard labor (or even not so hard labor), is a slave in a certain technical sense. It's lawful under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Then we have the Parable of the Talents. A definite parable approving capitalism. Sort of.

It would more accurate to say it's not an anti-slavery book. It's also not an anti-capitalism book.

How can it avoid using AI as sources for its content? It can't! It turns the phrase used by manufacturers and salespeople, "Eat your own dog food," meaning to use the products you yourself make, into "Eat your own dogs."

That's certainly and scarily possible!

Blow my cover? LOL! Yeah, it could blow my cover, since my IRL name, Mike Clark, is so generic that it's anonymous. There's probably tens of thousands of us in the USA alone.

I signed up, and immediately upvoted the song. And commented. I'm "cyberherbalist" there.

I think that the channel is particular for the Fairview temple. The channel description says: "The purpose of this channel is to provide accurate context regarding the public discussion of the temple being built in Fairview Texas. I am just a regular Joe and not affiliated with the Town or the Church"

As for dating sites, my wife and I found each other on LDSSingles.com. It's still around with that name. There's another couple of them, one called TrueLDS.com, and another called LDSDatingSite.com. I have no idea if the Church has contacted them about the use of "LDS." Given the difficulty that LDS youth in sparsely-LDS areas have in finding other church members to date, it would be nice if there were a way the church itself could provide a meetup service. But I suppose it would be very risky, liability-wise.

WW Phelps originally wrote Praise to the Man to be sung to the tune "Star in the East". This is a rendition of that version:

When I first heard about this issue, and right up until today, I was under the impression that the Church was building a temple in a rural area with a low population density. So, a temple somewhat in the middle of nowhere that some folks felt was going to ruin the country vibe. This turns out to be totally false. The objection that the temple ruins the community's country vibe fails. And it's definitely religious prejudice.

Tagging people is done by typing the @ immediately followed by the initial letters of the screen name. The board software will provide you with a match-list to select from as you type. @ros <- Then click on the desired screen name using your mouse, or use the up/down arrow keys to highlight, then Enter to select.

Not bad, but I like the Celtic Mix version best!