laronius

That's not saying much. "My guy" presents a pretty low bar for comparison.

JS Matthew 1:48 Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.
We know that if we are wise and understand the scriptures we can know the season in which Christ will return but not the specific day or hour. This verse seems to imply that even if we know the season we may still be surprised when it actually happens. It makes me wonder what the conditions will be like so as to make His coming unexpected.
I was watching a YouTube video yesterday where the guy was performing some pretty serious prophetic gymnastics to make this General Conference as a possible time of His coming. While I gave him a really low overall score I did award him some difficulty points. 😃
But it did make me wonder about two different possibilities for an unexpected Second Coming. The first is that some signs are fulfilled without us fully realizing it (which this guy was relying heavily upon). The second is that certain events happen so quickly that it just catches us off guard how quickly things transpire. This second theory would seem to support the idea of a hastening and the times being cut short. While I don't think things will happen so quickly as to make this General Conference a viable candidate it does make me wonder just how quickly it could take place. 

That's not saying much. "My guy" presents a pretty low bar for comparison.

My guy can beat up your guy!  My buddy put this together, with 2nd week of December 2034 ad the clear and obvious time. 

JS Matthew 1:48 Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.
We know that if we are wise and understand the scriptures we can know the season in which Christ will return but not the specific day or hour. This verse seems to imply that even if we know the season we may still be surprised when it actually happens. It makes me wonder what the conditions will be like so as to make His coming unexpected.
I was watching a YouTube video yesterday where the guy was performing some pretty serious prophetic gymnastics to make this General Conference as a possible time of His coming. While I gave him a really low overall score I did award him some difficulty points. 😃
But it did make me wonder about two different possibilities for an unexpected Second Coming. The first is that some signs are fulfilled without us fully realizing it (which this guy was relying heavily upon). The second is that certain events happen so quickly that it just catches us off guard how quickly things transpire. This second theory would seem to support the idea of a hastening and the times being cut short. While I don't think things will happen so quickly as to make this General Conference a viable candidate it does make me wonder just how quickly it could take place. 

I feel the same, much too long of verses. I'm not a good singer anyway but that hymn just really taxes my vocal cords.
I actually really like A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief but now that I think about it I cannot even remember the last time we've sung it at church. Maybe years. That's a shame. 

As long as we're talking about hymns we don't like, how about "I Believe in Christ" - I mean, yeah, true teachings and all that, but I really dislike the tune, tempo, and I don't know what, but I'm not just indifferent, I dislike it.  :glances upward to see if lightning bolts are inbound:
My list of "favorite" hymns is ridiculously long, and yes, "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" is one of my favorites.  "How Firm a Foundation" might top the list.

It appears that when they were in bondage in Egypt for all those many years idolatry was not a problem. It was only when they had been freed and felt they no longer needed the Lord did they forget Him. I am reminded of the early days of the Church when the Lord had this to say when the saints were enduring great persecution:
D&C 101:8 In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.
I wish I could say that this hasn't been an issue in my own life. I imagine the dilemma that God must face, wanting to bless us with everything a loving parent can bestow upon a child but knowing that blessing may become a curse.

I like his insight and it does bring some clarity but I don't completely agree with his conclusion. Saying that God said No, No, and then Yes might be oversimplifying it but that is in essence what He said, conditional though it may have been. And yes, God will eventually give us what we want, even contrary to His will if we persist long enough. Just recently I had felt to take a certain action that I kept finding excuses not to, when in one of my doubting prayers the Spirit in essence said "Then don't do it." Sensing the Lord growing weary with me I quickly humbled myself and acted on the original prompting. In both instances the Lord's "Yes" isn't signifying approval of the act (or in my case lack of action) but rather the Lord not willing to subvert agency by applying too much pressure. If we want to do things our way He won't stand in the way but will be waiting for us on the other end of those poor choices to encourage us back onto the right path.

The glory of God is "Light and Truth". I take this verse to be both figurative and literal. Our bodies are wrapped in glory (light), even such that it has the ability to kill a mortal body unless that body is quickened -- light increased.

Hmm.  Sounds sort of like this:

Some semi-formed, highly speculative ponderings about light:
Given their source, we can accept these verses as truth. If we could work out how they are true, I think it would revolutionise our understanding of astronomy, electo-magnetic energy, truth, information, and how it is conveyed. It might also improve our understanding of how the Spirit communicates with us. In these verses, God has given us the answers. We just need to work out the how. If I was a physicist studying the properties of light, Doctrine and Covenants 88 is where I would begin. When God has given us direct teachings and truth on a topic that we want to know about, I can see some disadvantages arising from not accepting and following those teachings. 
I suspect that one approach to studying the question of how physical light is/might be truth would be in looking more closely at the dual nature of light as both a particle and as energy. Light joins together in one thing the properties of a particle and the properties of energy. I think that the joining of two things into one -  intelligence to spirit to create a soul, then soul to physical body, then two bodies merged into one through temple marriage to create a family, then sperm and egg combining to create a body - is main method God uses for bringing seperate things into a higher order of being.  
When I think of these verses I almost always immediately think also of the idea that God dwells in the midst of everlasting burning which sounds to me like a sun. A sun produces and emits more light than anything else - as does God. The other side of that thought is the idea that the place of least light, a black hole, where matter is stripped of its defining characteristics, sounds exactly like outer darkness, to which souls are consigned to be returned back to the condition they were in before they came into contact with God.
(This is a diversion from the main topic but if it is the case that black holes are outer darkness, and that everything, including the remnants of those souls who are assigned there, eventually gets recycled, then perhaps what comes out of black holes - hawking radiation - might in some way be related to, or even be a form of, intelligence.)  
I suspect that either light is the medium through which truth is conveyed, or in ways yet to be worked out, light is truth. 
Verse 12 of the above refers to light filling the immensity of space. Light is a form of energy. The only thing I know that fills the immensity of space is the form of energy we refer to as the cosmic microwave background. 
I suspect that if you compare the properties of light/energy with the properties of truth/intelligence you might find enough similarities to have cause to start thinking that they might be the same thing.  
If we accept the idea that this universe started with the big bang, and maybe that's true and maybe its not, and that God played a part in enabling the big bang to happen, then that could be part of the explanation for how God created all truth, because light only came into existence as a consequence of the big bang. 

My guess is our fallen mortal bodies make poor discerners of what me might call non-physical light (though we may come to learn there really is no such distinction). Hence the great need of the Holy Ghost in helping us receive the light we need. In the resurrection we will receive immortal bodies commensurate with our willingness to accept light and will inherit kingdoms of glory/light in proportion to what our bodies can receive. 

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
I have generally read these verses as a metaphor, the light of the gospel/Christ/truth that comes from God being likened unto the physical light that allows us to see with our eyes. But verse 11 seems to be more literal, making them one in the same. Is that how everyone else reads it?

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
I have generally read these verses as a metaphor, the light of the gospel/Christ/truth that comes from God being likened unto the physical light that allows us to see with our eyes. But verse 11 seems to be more literal, making them one in the same. Is that how everyone else reads it?

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
I have generally read these verses as a metaphor, the light of the gospel/Christ/truth that comes from God being likened unto the physical light that allows us to see with our eyes. But verse 11 seems to be more literal, making them one in the same. Is that how everyone else reads it?

I think this is a great question. I think these type of questions allow us to ponder truth a little more as we seek further light and knowledge. I would take a different approach and simply say focus on these aspects within their sphere of truth. I really like this teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants where it teaches us the following, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (emphasis mine)
Let's review this independent truth, "the only true Church." This is a very important truth that shouldn't be replaced by the "most correct," which is pointing toward the Book of Mormon in reference to other scripture (Holy Bible). Within its independent sphere of truth it should never be compromised to "most correct." There is no other way back to the Father, except through Christ and his Church. If we were to solely focus on "most correct", then it could lead some to remove themselves from the Church because it may be the most correct but there are still other paths that are correct. This would result with some members making a choice to follow a forbidden path, letting go of the iron rod.
As truth is a sphere, independent, spheres of truth are also interwoven with each other. Remember, we believe the "restored" Church of Jesus Christ, and as President Nelson has made clear that restoration is still very much occurring. This is also taught in our Article of Faith #9. We believe that God will continue to reveal truth to his Church. This revelation may result from another church's teachings. This is why I find Mason theory from anti-Church individuals to be humorous. If the Lord preserved a "truth" for his restoration through another faith or culture, then the Lord has every right to bring that truth back into his Church -- without question. All truth is Christ's -- for he is the way, the truth, and the light.
As we properly focus on each of these two truths, "most correct," and the "only true Church" we will profitably grow quicker. If we focus on one more than the other we will lose that independent truth and eventually look beyond the mark.
It needs to be announced unapologetically and unequivocally that this is the only true Church. This is the straight and narrow path. There is no other way to the Father, and this is why we have work for the dead (as you know). We also need to keep aware that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct," because this allows the right and privilege of the apostles and prophets to make updates, corrections, or clarifications to scripture.
 

Our knowledge of our existence is mostly limited to the immediate past and future. I am defining immediate from an eternal perspective, so in other words the revealed premortal spirit world and the postmortal spirit world through judgement. As we move out beyond those points our knowledge is extremely limited. And while there are a few things we do know it would kind of be like connecting the dots of a drawing of an architectural plan where 95% of the dots are missing. Maybe enough to give us a very vague outline but trying to fill in details is guess work. 

Our knowledge of our existence is mostly limited to the immediate past and future. I am defining immediate from an eternal perspective, so in other words the revealed premortal spirit world and the postmortal spirit world through judgement. As we move out beyond those points our knowledge is extremely limited. And while there are a few things we do know it would kind of be like connecting the dots of a drawing of an architectural plan where 95% of the dots are missing. Maybe enough to give us a very vague outline but trying to fill in details is guess work. 

Contact the mission president. He holds the keys for the missionaries.

I'm not convinced of this.  I think our "intelligence" and ability to make decisions (aka free will) predates our spirit (probably, but I acknowledge we really don't know anything about "intelligences").  I believe agency is:
1. A gift from God:
2. That the proper term is "moral agency":
3. See above verse again - that agency is accountability for our own sins - it's like if a celebrity (athlete, actor, author) hires an agent to represent them.  The agent has the power and authority to act in their client's name.  In our case, we can either be agents unto ourselves (acting in our own name and interests and reaping the "natural" rewards of our actions) or we can be agents of Jesus Christ (taking his name upon ourselves, and acting in his name and interests, and receiving the rewards he has for us).  (See also D&C 93:29-32.)
I could be all wrong, and in scripture, sometimes will and agency appear to be used interchangeably, but in my mind, the ability to make decisions (will) is distinct from agency (accountability), but both are dependent upon knowledge and opposition.
Many have speculated that Joseph must have been referring to the "intelligence" rather than the spirit, because we are spirit children of God (described in some places as "begotten") - which implies we existed in some other form prior to becoming spirit children of God - namely, the "intelligence" form.
[Lately, I have wondered if we aren't making way too many assumptions about these things (what it means to be a "spirit child of God"; the intelligence > spirit > mortal > resurrected immortal sequence; that "intelligence" is a state of being (presumably the one that preexisted the other forms - though I wonder, if that is the case, might there be a form that preceded "intelligence"?); etc.).  I'm wondering these things because reading the supporting scriptures doesn't necessarily paint the simple, consistent picture that we often use in the Church.]
I think that if our sentient self existed in some form (which we have been calling "an intelligence") prior to becoming a spirit (as a child of heavenly parents), then that form was more than a self-existing will - it was a person, a self-aware entity not so different from the "person" we are today, just made of something different - matter more fine even than spirit matter?  Energy?  Something.
If, on the other hand, we did not become sentient until we were begotten sons and daughters of heavenly parents, then I'd say our "intelligence" could be anything from an independent entity to be merged into said spirit to a mass of raw material from which God drew to create that spirit.  (Your argument that we had to have always been sentient because otherwise I don't really have free will, I only have whatever God gave me, seems sound.  I think despite D&C 93, I could make an argument that we don't have evidence of man's eternal sentience and free will - that believing in these is only assumption or deduction.)
Yep and yep.  I'd say these are true regardless of what "intelligences" are, and regardless of whether we always had sentience or gained it at some point.
"Eternal" truth is God's truth.   I smile, but I'm quite serious.  I think we're all dumb as posts compared to God and don't stand much chance of figuring out which of all the things we "know" are still going to be the "same" once we know as much as God knows (assuming we ever do).
I'm with you on all that, but I would use "will" where you use "agency".
I think the best argument for our eternal sentience and will is the simple fact that sentience and will exist at all.  How could a non-sentient being without will (or a non-sentient mass of intelligence or whatever) become or produce a sentient being?  I argue it could not.  The sentience and will had to have existed all along or there would never have been action or decision or sentience.  (This is one of those "eternity past" things that's impossible to wrap your head around, but it's also self-evident - sentience and free will are the natural initial state of all intelligent beings - they cannot be created because one of them already exists.  The only way around that is to argue the sectarian notion of a self-existing God who is the only self-existing entity - but we've rejected that notion.  The moment we claim to be the same species as God, or claim to be co-eternal with God, and claim that God was once as we are, we have no option other than: everyone is eternal and must have always been sentient and had free will.)
I think your premise is as sound as the average mortal can make.  Whether someone closer to God can make a better premise, I couldn't guess (not being them myself), but yours seems reasonable.

I think we're on the same page.  I understand my choice of words could have been a finer point, but I think we're in the same place.  All "intelligence" exists in some eternal degree with the ability to "choose" to grow.  Maybe it's an urge, maybe it's contemplated, but it's a fundamental, primal, thing.  THAT is the core of what eventually becomes a spirit child of heavenly parents.
I am especially on the same page where it relates to "eternal" truth.  I have been pondering hard on free will vs nihilism.  The only conclusion that made sense to me is the Restored Gospel. And you are very right, what we call truth IS true, but the actual truth is SO much more.  So, it behooves us not to get stuck on our words, they are pointers, not the thing pointed to.  BUT, we also need remember that the truth is what we believe and MORE, not less.  
Orthodox Christendom in all flavors is repellant (honestly, abhorrent) to me. Defined as, the "limitless" God that has no need and is by definition satisfied, makes beings, knowing many will ultimately choose suffering, but had no decision in their creation.
The Restoration teaches a view that harmonizes what we see in reality and all true science, with the loving, personal, splendorous God that Orthodoxy TRIES to present.  In this, there is peace for me.  In this view, God isn't magic, he's REAL.
I think the way we might word my first post is the simple, "We are eternal, as God is.  We, and he, at our core, are some types of "will"/"intelligence"/"something that wants/chooses" as is everyone.  While he is vastly far beyond us, laughably even, all intelligence is susceptible to growth, and it will, according to its desire."
None of this is to remove the hand of God in directing and aiding, just to set up the premise.  Because I find no other premise sound or satisfying.  Though I am always willing to listen and broaden my understanding!

I think that's an interesting question because we assume his present state as a spirit allows him to perform his responsibilities. But does that mean there are things he can do that God the Father can't because He has a body?

Exaltation down under. From penal colony to heavenly abode. You might have a point there. 😃

Another possibility arises with what the future holds specifically for children who die. Some believe they will still have the chance to mature to adulthood, perhaps during the Millennium, before they are resurrected. Maybe a Lazarus type regeneration, temporary in nature.
But I also agree with your assessment that resurrection does not have to utilize the final remains of an individual.