Jump to content

Church should address ufos


JAHS

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

I have seen a few UFOs in my lifetime but I have never thought they came from outer space. I would bet my entire life's earnings on that. Anyone else living out there are simply too far away from us to get to us by natural means.  Nor do I think that God needs to use such devices to appear to people on earth.
He only lets humans(prophets) to use devices to bring about His purposes on earth (eg Liahona, Urim and Thummim, etc).  IMHO.

Are you so very sure about that? If we limit ourselves to the possible, we are limited indeed.

Science Fiction authors who wish to delve in interstellar travel have to find some way to go faster than light, or somehow make an end run around that speed limit. They come up with all kinds of ideas for it. 

But there are serious ideas out there:

Link to post
20 hours ago, JAHS said:

Thought this would be good for a laugh:

Church should address aerial phenomena, UFOs

I am writing this letter in response to the June 4 article on the report regarding unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and unidentified flying objects (UFOs). I want to write from the perspective of a Christian minister on this subject because I feel it has been a topic that has not been addressed to a great extent in the church at large.

Ever since the New York Times revealed the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) in December 2017, the manner of discussion on the subject has taken on a new dimension. From my experiences, it seems that many Christians do not like talking about these occurrences.

In my research on UAP and UFOs, the Christian perspective is very diverse. The Christian author and apologist C.S. Lewis wrote an article called “Religion and Rocketry” where he examined the question on whether outer space contained other fallen beings and the possibility that Jesus Christ manifested in different forms on different worlds to be their redeemer.

Dr. Walter Martin once spoke of the possibility of UFOs being piloted by spiritual entities such as demons or fallen angels from another dimension. Other ministers believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life and examine the exotheological possibilities of how we should respond as the Church of Jesus Christ.

The issue of UAPs and UFOs is one of the most important in the human narrative. Are these profound craft that defy all the laws of physics piloted by extraterrestrials from another world? Are these craft an advent of technology held by a terrestrial foreign power? Are these craft the product of another dimension? The time has come for the Church of Jesus Christ to address this question.

As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am calling for all Christian ministers to think biblically and critically about this very profound question. No longer be afraid to discuss this subject with those in your congregations that may have questions regarding what is going on in the skies.

In a world that has become filled with fear and misinformation, we must be the light and peace of Jesus Christ by showing his undying love to everyone in all things.

The Rev. Justin Searls

_____________________________________
So is this perhaps what really happened?

moroni.jpg.4c967e7d50cf4c279b8ac892aed00ea0.jpg

Back in 2014, the Pope said that we'd baptize aliens if they showed up and asked :)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Back in 2014, the Pope said that we'd baptize aliens if they showed up and asked :)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html

I'm pretty sure the LDS outlook is to expect aliens to be more-or-less humaniform. But regardless, I suspect we'd baptize them, too, if they asked.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm pretty sure the LDS outlook is to expect aliens to be more-or-less humaniform. But regardless, I suspect we'd baptize them, too, if they asked.

Jesus said:
"1. And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister." 
2. For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.
3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them. (3 Nephi 16: 1-13)

I wonder if Jesus was also including the people of other worlds when He said this?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LOL!

This is almost a perfect example of projection.

We have some strange lights that cannot be completely understood. Therefore revelation must answer the question? Nah.

Folks already think we are a weird cult, we don't need to prove it!

I think we are the only Christians who actually believe doctrinally that God has children on other worlds.

Done.

Nothing more needs to be said.

People laugh about Kolob being a planet.

Wait til they figure it out that we were actually right.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Folks already think we are a weird cult, we don't need to prove it!

I think we are the only Christians who actually believe doctrinally that God has children on other worlds.

Done.

Nothing more needs to be said.

People laugh about Kolob being a planet.

Wait til they figure it out that we were actually right.

It is not a planet. It is a star.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not a planet. It is a star.

Oh yes

I sit corrected in my ez chair.

That makes a lot more sense for those who think we are nuts :)

 

Link to post
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Folks already think we are a weird cult, we don't need to prove it!

What? We're not?

Who knew?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yes

I sit corrected in my ez chair.

That makes a lot more sense for those who think we are nuts :)

 

Agreed. When your wacky astronomy is more specific they will surely realize we are not brain-addled lunatics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed. When your wacky astronomy is more specific they will surely realize we are not brain-addled lunatics.

For me, astronomy is the best example of how science is less about what is 'out there" than our perceptions of what is "out there".

Even looking at the Sun our perceptions are what- 8 minutes?- behind what is "real"- even if we postulate that what we see is "real"

And then there are the better examples when stars are a few thousand light years away- when there is a few thousand years before our brains will even have a perception of what used to be.

And so we are inventing theories not about what is "real" but what we think and perceive what is "reality".   This effect exists even if the observations are only fractions of a nanosecond- but the principle is still the same.   We never see "reality"- just what we perceive, augmented by devices like telescopes perhaps, but still only what we can perceive.

So seeing God is an analogy- I think. In that situation all we have is our perceptions- in this case feelings- to go by.

Suppose you are hiking along a trail, and see a large bear coming straight at you.  Fear will probably be part of your reaction.  Your perception of the situation includes a fear reaction.

Should you use that feeling to judge if the bear is "real"?   I mean it could be a fallen tree or a rock with an odd shape- but SHOULD you react to the feeling?

It would be prudent to see if your feeling persists.  ;)

So too with getting those feelings about God.  ;)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For me, astronomy is the best example of how science is less about what is 'out there" than our perceptions of what is "out there".

Even looking at the Sun our perceptions are what- 8 minutes?- behind what is "real"- even if we postulate that what we see is "real"

And then there are the better examples when stars are a few thousand light years away- when there is a few thousand years before our brains will even have a perception of what used to be.

And so we are inventing theories not about what is "real" but what we think and perceive what is "reality".   This effect exists even if the observations are only fractions of a nanosecond- but the principle is still the same.   We never see "reality"- just what we perceive, augmented by devices like telescopes perhaps, but still only what we can perceive.

So seeing God is an analogy- I think. In that situation all we have is our perceptions- in this case feelings- to go by.

Suppose you are hiking along a trail, and see a large bear coming straight at you.  Fear will probably be part of your reaction.  Your perception of the situation includes a fear reaction.

Should you use that feeling to judge if the bear is "real"?   I mean it could be a fallen tree or a rock with an odd shape- but SHOULD you react to the feeling?

It would be prudent to see if your feeling persists.  ;)

So too with getting those feelings about God.  ;)

 

 

One thing about astronomy that has always amazed me is that eventually the local galaxies will all merge and due to the red-shifting of the Universe’s expansion it will be impossible to observe anything from other galaxies. A people who live in such an era and develop astronomy would assume that the local galactic cluster is the Universe.

It has always served to me as a general metaphor for unknowable realities. One thing we know exists that will eventually cease to be detectable.

Of course whether life will still be around then (2 trillion years in the future) may make the theoretical observer an impossibility in any case so the metaphor hits some limits.

Many lessons to be learned from the stars:

stingray_nebula.png

Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

For me, astronomy is the best example of how science is less about what is 'out there" than our perceptions of what is "out there".

Even looking at the Sun our perceptions are what- 8 minutes?- behind what is "real"- even if we postulate that what we see is "real"

And then there are the better examples when stars are a few thousand light years away- when there is a few thousand years before our brains will even have a perception of what used to be.

And so we are inventing theories not about what is "real" but what we think and perceive what is "reality".   This effect exists even if the observations are only fractions of a nanosecond- but the principle is still the same.   We never see "reality"- just what we perceive, augmented by devices like telescopes perhaps, but still only what we can perceive.

So seeing God is an analogy- I think. In that situation all we have is our perceptions- in this case feelings- to go by.

Suppose you are hiking along a trail, and see a large bear coming straight at you.  Fear will probably be part of your reaction.  Your perception of the situation includes a fear reaction.

Should you use that feeling to judge if the bear is "real"?   I mean it could be a fallen tree or a rock with an odd shape- but SHOULD you react to the feeling?

It would be prudent to see if your feeling persists.  ;)

So too with getting those feelings about God.  ;)

 

 

"A long time ago, and in a galaxy far away". 

Link to post
On 6/11/2021 at 4:41 AM, Stargazer said:

Are you so very sure about that? If we limit ourselves to the possible, we are limited indeed.

Science Fiction authors who wish to delve in interstellar travel have to find some way to go faster than light, or somehow make an end run around that speed limit. They come up with all kinds of ideas for it. 

But there are serious ideas out there:

Cool ideas but still largely implausible. If we can get a fusion reaction operating on a scale to power a spacecraft we could make relatively slow interstellar journeys. We would also probably end all energy shortages on Earth at the same time.

If we can harness antimatter then virtually nothing energy related is a limitation. The problem is while we can create antimatter we can’t make much of it and have only a few theoretical ideas of how to possibly store it (it doesn’t last long). Some of those theoretical storage methods require exotic particles we aren’t even sure exist.

I love this stuff but we have some huge hurdles to overcome to make any of this realistic. We also hit the sad reality that it is unlikely there is any planet we can just land on and set up shop. That means any attempt at extrasolar colonization would be slow. First probes. Then some kind of team that might not ever come home to study what will be needed to make living on the planet possible. Finally we would need to tame it which means probably shipping off all kinds of stuff and finally the most expensive part is probably going to be moving people in quantity.

We have not found much in the way of viable resources to gather in even our own solar system. Don’t get me wrong. There is valuable stuff out there but we need a way to make harvesting it viable. Some method of getting things to space more cheaply like a space elevator or some method of boosting stuff into orbit relatively cheaply.

 

I would sadly add that discovering viable fusion reactors and especially antimatter creation would also make it much more likely that humanity will wipe itself out.

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Cool ideas but still largely implausible. If we can get a fusion reaction operating on a scale to power a spacecraft we could make relatively slow interstellar journeys. We would also probably end all energy shortages on Earth at the same time.

If we can harness antimatter then virtually nothing energy related is a limitation. The problem is while we can create antimatter we can’t make much of it and have only a few theoretical ideas of how to possibly store it (it doesn’t last long). Some of those theoretical storage methods require exotic particles we aren’t even sure exist.

I love this stuff but we have some huge hurdles to overcome to make any of this realistic. We also hit the sad reality that it is unlikely there is any planet we can just land on and set up shop. That means any attempt at extrasolar colonization would be slow. First probes. Then some kind of team that might not ever come home to study what will be needed to make living on the planet possible. Finally we would need to tame it which means probably shipping off all kinds of stuff and finally the most expensive part is probably going to be moving people in quantity.

We have not found much in the way of viable resources to gather in even our own solar system. Don’t get me wrong. There is valuable stuff out there but we need a way to make harvesting it viable. Some method of getting things to space more cheaply like a space elevator or some method of boosting stuff into orbit relatively cheaply.

 

I would sadly add that discovering viable fusion reactors and especially antimatter creation would also make it much more likely that humanity will wipe itself out.

What we need is a wormhole - Deep Space 9 style.

worm.jpg.4331d80bae65901b6329e2be7a187226.jpg

Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Cool ideas but still largely implausible. If we can get a fusion reaction operating on a scale to power a spacecraft we could make relatively slow interstellar journeys. We would also probably end all energy shortages on Earth at the same time.

I agree about the implausibility, but the implausibility is only a scientific or engineering breakthrough away from becoming plausible, and then commonplace.

My grandmother was born in May 1903, seven months before the Wright brothers first flew their heavier-than-air airplane. Before she died, something that was utterly implausible at her birth became commonplace, and when she was 65 years old she flew on a jet airliner to visit us in Toronto, Canada from Los Angeles, California.

Of course, fusion power has been 20 years in the future for the past 50 years, so who knows if there will be a breakthrough? I have high hopes.

Quote

If we can harness antimatter then virtually nothing energy related is a limitation. The problem is while we can create antimatter we can’t make much of it and have only a few theoretical ideas of how to possibly store it (it doesn’t last long). Some of those theoretical storage methods require exotic particles we aren’t even sure exist.

I love this stuff but we have some huge hurdles to overcome to make any of this realistic. We also hit the sad reality that it is unlikely there is any planet we can just land on and set up shop. That means any attempt at extrasolar colonization would be slow. First probes. Then some kind of team that might not ever come home to study what will be needed to make living on the planet possible. Finally we would need to tame it which means probably shipping off all kinds of stuff and finally the most expensive part is probably going to be moving people in quantity.

All it requires is men and women with vision and the will to carry out that vision.  Elon Musk is actively working towards the idea of landing on Mars and setting up shop. I'm pretty confident that he will succeed, and in my lifetime, too. 

I agree that extrasolar exploration is implausible. But there's always the possibility of an unforeseen breakthrough. Although I don't think there will be one  before the Millenium kicks in.

Quote

We have not found much in the way of viable resources to gather in even our own solar system. Don’t get me wrong. There is valuable stuff out there but we need a way to make harvesting it viable. Some method of getting things to space more cheaply like a space elevator or some method of boosting stuff into orbit relatively cheaply.

Once we have that cheap method of boosting stuff into orbit, there are virtually unlimited resources out there in the solar system. Consider the asteroid Pysche. It is an iron-nickel asteroid with enough iron in it to build millions of spacecraft, orbital habitats, or billions of bridges here on earth. Jupiter is an unlimited source of hydrogen gas for fuel (including for fusion). The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are enormous sources of water and various organics. There are methane lakes on Titan; we're not sure how large in terms of volume. There are oceans worth of water on Enceladus (with salt content similar to our oceans on earth), but we needn't harvest it from Enceladus itself, because Enceladus has been outgassing water vapor into Saturn's E-ring for millions or billions of years, and the E-ring alone represents a nearly unlimited source of water. 

If we can just get out there...

Quote

I would sadly add that discovering viable fusion reactors and especially antimatter creation would also make it much more likely that humanity will wipe itself out.

Not sure this is the case. If energy became very cheap, it might actually reduce conflict. But there are always devils in the details, like Hitlers and Genghis Khans.

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...