Will Christ return in your lifetime?

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Considering our belief that this planet was not created from out of nothing but from already existing materials, there is no good reason to think the creation couldn't have been accomplished in only 6 rotations of the planet.

The age of the materials in or on the planet are totally irrelevant to how long it took to create things with those materials or to bring materials and different kinds of living beings to this planet.

No offense but it's these kinds of explanations that make it impossible for many people to take religion seriously.

So you're saying that within 6 literal days all of the materials that form the earth came together with the fossils and even living life? If that's the case, the 6 day creation allegory of the creation of plant and animal life isn't true. So you either have to choose between the timeline, or the account that things plants and animals were actually "created".

It would be so much better to say, "yeah, it doesn't looks like some of this is literal". The end.

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's because some basic science obliterates those dates. Humans didn't start walking the earth 6000 years ago. That is pretty widely accepted, right? 

The age of the earth has already forced many within the Christian tradition (LDS included) largely abandon the literal 6 day for creation in favor of "creative periods" etc. which is much more reasonable and defensible.

When certain, major claims are falsified it raises questions about the reliability of other claims as well. Seems pretty natural.

I don't think we've abandoned anything, (Un?)HappyJackWagon.  The Book of Moses has been a part of our canon for 140 years.  

[strappinglad]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's because some basic science obliterates those dates.

Sometimes science even obliterates its own dates.

Retesting of ancient teeth found in China shows they are 16,000 years old—not 120,000 (phys.org)

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No offense but it's these kinds of explanations that make it impossible for many people to take religion seriously.

So you're saying that within 6 literal days all of the materials that form the earth came together with the fossils and even living life? If that's the case, the 6 day creation allegory of the creation of plant and animal life isn't true. So you either have to choose between the timeline, or the account that things plants and animals were actually "created".

It would be so much better to say, "yeah, it doesn't looks like some of this is literal". The end.

Creating means to organize.  Do you understand that?  It doesn't mean to make from out of nothing.

So, day one, God did a little of this and a little of that.  It doesn't make any difference how old the materials were that he used.  Whether the stars and planets were trillions or millions of years old on day 1 makes no difference at all to what he did on day 1.

And then on day 2 he did something else.  Boom.  And then on day 2 that stuff was done.

Etc.

What is he doing today, I wonder.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Creating means to organize.  Do you understand that?  It doesn't mean to make from out of nothing.

So, day one, God did a little of this and a little of that.  It doesn't make any difference how old the materials were that he used.  Whether the stars and planets were trillions or millions of years old on day 1 makes no difference at all to what he did on day 1.

And then on day 2 he did something else.  Boom.  And then on day 2 that stuff was done.

Etc.

What is he doing today, I wonder.

Do you ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs never existed on the earth and that their fossils (and fossil fuels) are remnants from other planets and came to earth as materials used to create the earth?

Do you ascribe to the theory that human remains older than 6000 years also arrived on earth in the same way as part of this creation/organization (and are therefore alien)? Just curious.

IF you feel those theories explain why the earth and its fossils/geology appear to be older than 6000 years, why do you feel it is necessary to stick to the literal story timeline? IF that is what you believe to you proudly proclaim it in church or to non-member friends or co-workers?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Best estimate given the timeline to Moses and the Egyptian period was 4400 BC

By whom?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

By whom?

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: 'The scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question'.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: 'The scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question'.

Which is why I would like to know the source of the authority of the estimate....if it is going to become a matter of faithfulness, I would hope it isn’t mostly dependent on tradition. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well the Bible seems to.

No, it doesn't. Not really.

You're relying upon Archbishop James Ussher's 1654 calculation that the date and time of the Creation was nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC. How do we know that he was correct? How do we know that Genesis, which Ussher relied upon, is completely accurate?

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is why I would like to know the source of the authority of the estimate....if it is going to become a matter of faithfulness, I would hope it isn’t mostly dependent on tradition. 

Here you go: James Ussher's Chronology

Note that his chronology isn't entirely dependent upon the ages of the Patriarchs as found in Genesis. His effort was a genuine one, and he searched out the data quite diligently. I sometimes roll my eyes at his simplistic conclusion, but I do him a disservice thereby. It was an honest effort and a lot of work. 

But he was wrong. In my humble opinion.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs never existed on the earth and that their fossils (and fossil fuels) are remnants from other planets and came to earth as materials used to create the earth?

Do you ascribe to the theory that human remains older than 6000 years also arrived on earth in the same way as part of this creation/organization (and are therefore alien)? Just curious.

IF you feel those theories explain why the earth and its fossils/geology appear to be older than 6000 years, why do you feel it is necessary to stick to the literal story timeline? IF that is what you believe to you proudly proclaim it in church or to non-member friends or co-workers?

You're not asking me, but the idea that dinosaurs never existed and that the earth is 6,000 years old is patent nonsense. It's 4.5 billion years, give or take a few million. And dinosaurs definitely existed.

On top of that, the Universe is at least 13 billion years old.

But on the other hand, if the universe that we see is the equivalent of The Matrix (in other words, nothing is real except our consciousnesses) then we see and smell only what God intends for us to see and smell, and it's not real at all. It's an interesting idea, but is also non-falsifiable. Might as well assume that what we see is reality, because there's no way to tell.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You're not asking me, but the idea that dinosaurs never existed and that the earth is 6,000 years old is patent nonsense. It's 4.5 billion years, give or take a few million.

And our leaders have, from the beginning, not got caught up in pointlessly debating these matters or making them standards by which to judge one another's faithfulness. Here's Brigham Young from 14 May 1871:

Quote

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal ... How long [the earth] has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years ...

 

Quote

And dinosaurs definitely existed.

Indeed. One of my favourite memories is of accompanying palaeontologists to a newly discovered excavation site. There, underneath plastic sheeting, was the mostly complete fossilised skeleton of a young stegosaurus. Magical!!!

Edited February 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs never existed on the earth and that their fossils (and fossil fuels) are remnants from other planets and came to earth as materials used to create the earth?

I realize this wasn't directed toward me, but, no, I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory.  The Bible only tells us, in general, what was going on in the Garden.  It doesn't tell us how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden or what was going on outside the Garden during that (possibly very long) time.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Here you go: James Ussher's Chronology

I will wait to see if that is the one JLHPROF uses. 

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will wait to see if that is the one JLHPROF uses. 

It's the most prevalent one.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's the most prevalent one.

I know. I just don’t see why JHLPROF would view Ussher, an Anglican bishop, as authoritative given his posting history.  

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

By whom?

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I will wait to see if that is the one JLHPROF uses. 

Tradition. That still exists in some Church sources.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/maps-and-charts?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The end can mean a lot of different events.  I'm not predicting armageddon etc.

But D&C 77 says 7000 from Adam to the end, or 6000 from Adam till the start of the Millennium.  The Millennium has Christ ruling and Satan bound.  Allowing for calendar errors and unclear events like the half hour of silence (which may be right now) I don't see how any believing saint can think the Millennium won't be here within a couple of decades at most.

Is D&C 77 not God's word on the subject?

If God wanted us to know when it was a few decades away he would have given a date for the opening of one of the seals. Assuming the fifth seal opened with Christ’s birth (or death?) you might be right that it is soon except we have other things suggesting that there are things that will take place in the seventh seal before Christ’s return and no idea how deep into the seventh seal those go on for. I have not seen many of the signs given for the time before Christ’s return so I am not going to take it as a given that it is in the next few decades or even the next century. If that makes you worry I am some kind of deranged heretic who does not believe scripture than my response is: Okay.

[AtlanticMike]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs never existed on the earth and that their fossils (and fossil fuels) are remnants from other planets and came to earth as materials used to create the earth

 I remember when I was young, older members of my family thought God took pieces of other planets that were floating around in space and molded them together to make our earth. To them, that's what explains the dinosaurs and old skeletal remains.  This statement also reminded me of something else they thought was going to happen. This was discussed on another thread,  they thought the ten tribes we're going to come back to earth by traveling on a small planet and the planet would get really close to earth and a bridge would form so they could walk down to earth, that or it would land in the gulf of Mexico. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 I remember when I was young, older members of my family thought God took pieces of other planets that were floating around in space and molded them together to make our earth. To them, that's what explains the dinosaurs and old skeletal remains.  This statement also reminded me of something else they thought was going to happen. This was discussed on another thread,  they thought the ten tribes we're going to come back to earth by traveling on a small planet and the planet would get really close to earth and a bridge would form so they could walk down to earth, that or it would land in the gulf of Mexico. 

There are so many "faithful" theories floated to explain how some scriptures stories and timelines can be literal. I just can't understand the need some people feel to hold on to absolute literal claims by authors we really don't know. It's so much easier to take the bible (and BoM) as allegory/metaphor and hold on to the valuable life lessons we can learn from the literature instead of treating it like a text book of pure fact.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 I remember when I was young, older members of my family thought God took pieces of other planets that were floating around in space and molded them together to make our earth. To them, that's what explains the dinosaurs and old skeletal remains.  This statement also reminded me of something else they thought was going to happen. This was discussed on another thread,  they thought the ten tribes we're going to come back to earth by traveling on a small planet and the planet would get really close to earth and a bridge would form so they could walk down to earth, that or it would land in the gulf of Mexico. 

What if it's all true?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What if it's all true?

Need I mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It hasn't been verified as untrue, so what if it is true? Or Scientology?

Every religion must be taken on faith but there must be limits, otherwise faith in the presence of verifiable facts is merely blind faith, and not really religious at all. Adhering to the "WHAT IF" is truth is a good way to hedge ones bets but not much more. BTW- we all do that to some degree so there's nothing really wrong with it, as long as we know we're doing it. 

[AtlanticMike]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What if it's all true?

Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it😁. If you look at my statement to happy Jack  wagon, I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it's what I remember many of my relatives talking about over 30 years ago. What I'm realizing for maybe the first time in my life is almost anything can be true to just about anyone who's willing to believe in it. 

   I watched a video last week of the members of heavens gate. They were basically bearing their testimony of how they knew without a shadow of a doubt that what their leader, I think his name was Doe, was the smartest being on earth and they knew as soon as they read his writings he was telling the truth.  The video was over an hour long of member after member praising this religion and saying how they were happy to die so they could go meet a comet that was passing by earth. That's what I call a strong testimony!  Me, my testimony has never been strong enough to even think about doing something close to that. Thankfully, our leaders would never do anything like that, but even if they did, I dont think mormons would follow.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it😁. If you look at my statement to happy Jack  wagon, I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it's what I remember many of my relatives talking about over 30 years ago. What I'm realizing for maybe the first time in my life is almost anything can be true to just about anyone who's willing to believe in it. 

   I watched a video last week of the members of heavens gate. They were basically bearing their testimony of how they knew without a shadow of a doubt that what their leader, I think his name was Doe, was the smartest being on earth and they knew as soon as they read his writings he was telling the truth.  The video was over an hour long of member after member praising this religion and saying how they were happy to die so they could go meet a comet that was passing by earth. That's what I call a strong testimony!  Me, my testimony has never been strong enough to even think about doing something close to that. Thankfully, our leaders would never do anything like that, but even if they did, I dont think mormons would follow.

I agree that church leaders wouldn't ask for anything malicious. Thank goodness.

But I do believe MANY members would do absolutely anything a leader asked them to do. How many times in my life have I heard something like "if the prophet tells me to pick up and walk to Missouri, I'll be on the road walking the next morning". Obviously there is historical precedent for church leaders asking members to faithfully pick up and travel with many losing their lives along the way.

There have been many threads over the years about various mormon prepper groups believing some dangerous stuff. Fortunately I think the radical groups within mormonism are fairly small. But they definitely exist.

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are so many "faithful" theories floated to explain how some scriptures stories and timelines can be literal. I just can't understand the need some people feel to hold on to absolute literal claims by authors we really don't know. It's so much easier to take the bible (and BoM) as allegory/metaphor and hold on to the valuable life lessons we can learn from the literature instead of treating it like a text book of pure fact.

While you see taking stuff literally as harder and taking stuff metaphorically as easier, I see the need to take everything literally and the need to see it all as allegory and metaphor as often coming from the same place--the need for no ambiguity in religious belief.  This isn't true for everyone but I'd say it's true for a lot people who ascribe to one or the other.  And both seem equally "easy" to me.

Taking the BOM and Bible as metaphor or taking everything in them as literal seem like two sides to the same coin.  Each is as easy as the other because each provide an "all or nothing" option for scripture, which is the simplest way to deal with it.  

"It all happened" and "none of it happened" can both be very comfortable places to stand in, while "some of it's literal and some of it's metaphor and we have to rely on the Spirit and our relationship with God to know which is which, and sometimes we'll get it wrong or won't know right away, and will end up believing one is one thing when it's actually the other" can feel uncomfortable. 

Trying to live in a nuanced place where fantastical things can be literal and where they can also be symbolic, metaphor, or allegory, where we are dependent upon imperfect understanding and outside influences to tell the difference, takes a lot more time and energy and connection with God than holding to only one or the other.

The extremes--whether to one side or the other--are often the easiest options for people, whether it's politics, religion, or any other topic.