Stargazer

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.

Good grief. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Screen doors on submarines. Who is buried in Grant's Tomb? If an airplane crashes on the border between the US and Canada, where do they bury the survivors?

Waiting for Godot. - Samuel Beckett "Godot will not be coming tonight, but surely tomorrow."

Only getting to this thread now. I am shocked that none of our doubters came by to douse us with cold water over this.

I'm not even sure what the OP is asking, and I definitely don't know what you're complaining about in connection with it. Clarification, please?

This is an old job posting, I thought they had put this out there a few years ago.

Interesting questions! I wonder what non-LDS Christians (e.g. you) think of the rest of the universe? Do you imagine that in the entire universe this earth is the only place inhabited by children of God? In the 1993 film "Contact" Dr. Ellie Arroway marvels about the possible millions of civilizations that were out there in the universe. The man she's talking with says "Well, if there wasn't, it would be an awful waste of space." Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? One description, from Wikipedia (found HERE😞 "The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. Those affirming the paradox generally conclude that if the conditions required for life to arise from non-living matter are as permissive as the available evidence on Earth indicates, then extraterrestrial life would be sufficiently common such that it would be implausible for it not to have been detected." Why haven't we heard something? If you read all about the paradox, you'll get all kinds of speculation. In itself, it's fun to speculate. I myself have come up with my own solution to the paradox (this may be the only original thought I've ever had). It goes like this: According the verses mentioned in other posts in the first chapter of the Book of Moses, God has been organizing inhabitable worlds for his children since the beginning of the universe, and each one goes through a similar process to what has happened here. And when the point begins to arrive that in each of these worlds people begin to listen to the music of the spheres as we do now on our earth, and there are billions of people upon each earth, each world experiences a Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, then their Millennium, and for a thousand years they are too busy living in peace to worry further about trying to contact other civilizations in the sky. Mainly because they're too busy doing temple work during that thousand years for everyone else who has ever lived upon their earth. And then, at the end of the thousand years, their Lucifer is released from his binding one last time, the final war occurs, and at the end their world is complete. Like ours will be. And so, they pretty much never start broadcasting so anyone can hear them. And what radio traffic does go out is so attenuated by distance that if it reaches an intelligent-life inhabited world at the right time for them to be listening, it's too weak to be heard. Now, in my scenario, Jesus Christ comes in corporeal form only once, and he does it here and nowhere else. It is here where he teaches personally, here where he atones for sin, is crucified, and is resurrected. The other worlds get inspired prophets who teach the same thing to all peoples, which is that the Son of God will come to a special world set aside for the purpose of achieving his atonement. And they look forward to the atonement of Christ, and to the day when they will have Him come before their thousand years of peace begins. This raises more questions than it answers, of course, but who cares? God knows what was, what is, and what will be. My job is just to be the best I can be, while I am doing what I need to do. Yes, it's a cockamamie theory, but I like it.

I think the original Christus statue in Copenhagen is likewise surrounded by smaller statues of the original 12. That's what I heard from an area authority at a recent stake conference, who was from Denmark.

Wow, way too political. Anticipating Nemesis's vengeful arrival in 3... 2... 1...

The "professionalism" of which you speak is generally unnecessary for the purposes of teaching. Robert Heinlein ( the novelist) once gave a basic definition of a university. Paraphrased, it went something like "A university is a log on which two persons sit opposite each other while the knowledgeable person instructs the less knowledgeable person about a topic they are both interested in." So, that makes you a university professor in the subject of watercolor painting! Professor Rain! I like the sound of that. Bureaucracy is the mortal enemy of education.

There's a bit of difference between those whom you regard as your enemy, and those who regard you as their enemy. It's possible to have some of the latter, but none of the former. I feel that in Christ's admonition to love your enemy, the enemy he means for you to love is the latter sort, while you yourself shouldn't have any of the former. In other words, love all of God's children, even those who consider you their enemy.

I'm curious about which ones in the current hymnbook you don't like! I wondered for myself about that, and the first (and only) one that came to mind was "Who's On The Lord's Side." The lyrics might be OK, but the tune is ridiculous. Mainly because it sounds like a parody of a sailor's song. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS! It was written by Henry Russell, and the original tune was called "A Life on the Ocean Wave." If this hymn with this tune makes its way into the new hymnbook, I will personally go through every new hymnbook in the building and carefully cut it out of every book, regardless of what is on the other side of the leaf. <- No, I won't, but I would certainly feel like doing it...

Your story makes me sad. I feel for you, and I believe I understand you better. Thanks for sharing! Goes to show that we have a long way to go as Latter-day Saints. I feel that if one has a testimony of the Gospel, and of the Church as Christ's Church, then it kind of is disobeying the Lord to not serve a mission. But if it's all shoulder-shrugging in regards to one's testimony, then perhaps that means a bit of introspection is in order. And perhaps it might be better to stay home. On the other hand, my current ministering companion found his testimony while on his mission. I don't know if he was pressured to serve, or not. He did say that he went voluntarily because he wanted a testimony, and had a number of experiences that made him quite sure about the Lord and the Church. As a convert in my teen years, I sometimes feel at a disadvantage when it comes to interacting with life-long members. That was one of the reasons I initially felt I had no business serving a mission, since I had never attended Primary, only a sliver of Young Men, and had no family support. A new member going out into the world to try to teach something I barely knew myself? Shudder. Nobody told me I had to go, but after a number of spiritual experiences I changed my mind. I'd be a bad missionary, I felt, but at least I'd be doing what I knew was right. I still feel that there was a lot in my service that was lacking. But it did change me in many positive ways.

I wonder if he borrowed that title from Elder Neal Maxwell's book?

It probably doesn't matter too much to you that the video was produced by LDS Philanthropies, whose only mission is philanthropic work. And as you may or may not have noticed, all philanthropies ask for money to do their work. It's not like President Nelson gets a share of the pie if they raise more money. Thing is, some people will find a problem in pretty much anything. When I decided to go on a mission, my father attempted to bribe me not to go, by saying if I postponed my mission he would pay for both my mission and my college 100%, but if and only if I went to college first. Since I was pretty certain that if I went to college first I would never serve a mission (would probably find a wife during that time), I declined his offer, and true to his word, I got nothing. After my mission I tried university (BYU) but ran out of money and joined the Army for a nice 8 year hitch. I did eventually get a degree in computer programming, which became my post-military career. Long route to get to it. Did your family give you a lot of grief for not serving a mission? If so, I sympathize. None of my children served missions, despite our encouragement. My wife and I kind of felt some degree of disappointment and failure in this. What did we do wrong? Apparently we were unable to inspire them to acquire strong testimonies of the gospel. We didn't hold it against them. I should modify that earlier statement, since one of my stepchildren served a mission, but since he was already in the field when I married his mother, I didn't have any involvement in inspiring him. One of his children served a mission in Brazil, but the rest didn't. They hoped you would turn out to be a big turd? Odd thing to hope for. Nice of you to pay for your own childrens' missions! How many did you have, and how many served? Are you being judged as a non-good person? Or is that your self-judgement? Every case is its own case. I'm not entirely sure that bribery to stay in the church is a terrible thing to do. And I have my doubts as to whether you are correct that Jesus does not approve. Can it not be the case that a bribed person eventually finds his or her own reason to stay in the church, regardless of the bribe? There are enough people out there who have been bribed to go to university, or bribed to do other good things, that I am unsure if that's a negative or not. I seem to recall that it has been said by certain parties that God is trying to bribe us to stay on His good side by keeping His commandments, hanging out that lovely reward of heaven if you do. Heck of a bribe! Actually, I don't think I know any righteous or unrighteous Mormons who have squandered it all. Probably because I have a smaller acquaintanceship circle than you. Might there be some who would squander it, if they got it? Yeah, probably. But of the very well off members of the church I have known, none of them inherited their wealth.

Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, Ward Radio has issued a video about Charlie Kirk's positivity towards the LDS church.

Patel said that because there was someone who was trying to run interference for the actual shooter, stepping to claim he was the one who did it. Falsely, but Patel, like anyone, thought he was truthful. But I suppose this has been said already.

I just recently rewatched The Bourne Legacy, which doesn't actually feature Bourne, but another character, Aaron Cross, in a different super-agent program called Outcome. The star is Jeremy Renner, and in my opinion, this film is better than every Bourne film except the first one. I'm in the process of watching The Accountant, starring Ben Affleck as the accountant. It's very good so far, but I haven't finished it yet. Note what I said above about needing to watch things in installments!

I get the anxiety thing. I've gotten way more anxious about films over the past few years. My wife is really into Jack Reacher, has read and loved every single novel, hated the Tom Cruise films, loves the Amazon Prime versions. I watched the first Amazon Prime episodes, but had to ask for breaks occasionally because I was starting to get anxious. I don't seem to be able to watch films all the way through these days, unless I've seen them already.