• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Starwatcher

  • Birthday 10/03/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Sussex, United Kingdom
  • Interests
    Reading, writing, publishing, science (especially astronomy), technology, and languages.
  • Religion
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

1032 profile views

Starwatcher's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/4)



  1. I agree that it appears he was being piled upon. Having read some of what Bart Ehrman has written about the New Testament texts, I find that I have modified the 8th Article of Faith in my own mind to read: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it was transmitted accurately and is translated correctly". Witness the Johannine Comma, and tell me that even if that was translated correctly, it represents true doctrine. I trust the New Testament, and love it, but I only trust it implicitly so far as it correlates with modern revelation and the Book of Mormon. See DC 91:2 in connection with the Apocrypha: "There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men." Besides the Apocrypha what is there in the NT besides the Comma that is an "interpolation by the hand of men"? The Book of Mormon itself verifies my caution: Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. [1 Nephi 13:28] (see 1 Nephi 13:20-29 for the full context) As for Sons of Perdition, I'm pretty sure King David is not one. Don't know about Judas, but it he is a member of that club, so be it.
  2. Heh. Not being a citizen, my voice on this is meaningless, except as background noise. I do have an opinion, however.
  3. Indeed. He wrote in Ps 32:5 "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." Either he was actually forgiven, meaning that his sin was not against the Holy Ghost, or this was wishful thinking. I don't see how one could regard what David did as the unpardonable sin, in any case. In and of itself, at least. I'm uncertain about this.
  4. Of course. I wrote what I wrote because the OP was implying that just because a fish does A means that so should we. The fish Kobudai doesn't "decide" to change gender -- or maybe it does, I don't know, but it has both sex organs so it's equipped for it. Another fish that changes sex is the clownfish -- the one portrayed in "Finding Nemo". The clownfish is a protandrous hermaphrodite, meaning that clownfish are born male, but may change to female according to the social hierarchy of a particular social group. Nemo doesn't "decide" to change gender. The dominant male of a female-less group changes to female, and the next most dominant male becomes the breeding male -- the rest stay male but celibate. Humans are not hermaphrodites nor protandrous hermaphrodites. We are obligate anhermaphrodites. Don't worry, I just made the word up, since there doesn't seem to be one available.
  5. Nice! I'm retired, so have far too much time I could devote to posting here! I hope to keep the lid on it.
  6. I'm just an amateur. I don't even own a telescope -- so perhaps using "watcher"is a bit of an exaggeration. But I do read and study a great deal about astronomy, because I find the subject endlessly fascinating. I was tremendously excited when New Horizons launched, and closely followed news about its progress. One of my favorite YouTube videos was this:
  7. Yes, yes, I know, but... He doesn't seem to be saying anyone has said it explicitly, but he infers that is what they believe from what he has seen them post. That's what I'm trying to say. And for the record, I don't see what he sees. Nobody's saying it doesn't happen. There's only been some equivocating over whether Judas has joined the SoP club. And even if this is true, that he's the club vice president, even Rob can only come up with two names: Cain and Judas. Two out of how many people who have ever lived? Comes to a very very minuscule fraction. This makes it, in fact, nearly impossible for anyone to become such, just judging by the numbers. But as someone or other once pointed out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Book of Mormon only mentions two women by name: Sariah the wife of Lehi, and Isabel the harlot. This is not evidence that there are no other women in the book. So perhaps, and surely, there have been more than 2 SoPs. But it still seems to be a very very exclusive club. I do wonder if the bar to membership is as high as some think it is, however. DC 76:35 - "Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame." I believe I have received the Holy Spirit -- in other words, having been confirmed by the authority of the priesthood, it having been commanded to me: "Receive the Holy Ghost", and afterwards having actually received it, in multiple experiences. Can I therefore not become a SoP by denying the experience? Therefore there would be tons of potential candidates. Or does it require having received more than this? Say, for example, having received a visitation of the Son? That would really contract the circle of potential members of the club.
  8. Here he gives a deduction from what some have said here, he interprets what they have said to support the notion they don't think anyone can become such. He's not saying anyone actually has explicitly said so. Classic mind-reading, I think. The only people from scripture I am aware of who could be labeled as an SoP is Cain and possibly Judas. Don't know of anyone else.
  9. I don't think he's said anyone here has said so.
  10. I've wondered about this, too. There seems to be two parts to the plan. The first is this: choice between doing evil and not doing evil. I.e. obeying the commandments or not obeying the commandments. It is from this that we get the choice between accepting Christ and his Atonement versus not doing so and suffering for our own sins. The second is: choice between being valiant in the testimony of Jesus or not being valiant. I.e. do we sit around on our salvational laurels, or do we get off our metaphorical duffs and actually work to further Father's work among His children. And this involves the further obedience to higher laws and covenants, such as are given to us in the Temple. If you carefully read DC 76 it seems that the population of the Telestial Kingdom ((DC 76:81-90)) will consist of those who refused to accept Christ as their Savior at any time (v.82: "These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.") and possibly those whose crimes put them beyond the reach of the Atonement (if that's possible), and all of these had to suffer for their own sins (v.84: "These are they who are thrust down to hell".) And that the Terrestrial Kingdom ((DC 76:71-80)) will consist of those who did accept Christ at some point and who received the saving ordinances (as a symbol of their acceptance), including those ("... who died without law; ...the spirits of men kept in prison ... who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. ... [the] honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men ... who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus") Finally, the Celestial Kingdom ((DC 76:50-70)) will consist of those who both accepted Christ and obeyed Him, but who also went on to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus ("who are the church of the Firstborn ... into whose hands the Father has given all things ... who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory ... priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son ... they are gods, even the sons of God ... all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s ... And they shall overcome all things)
  11. No more? Just FYI, in connection with what you wrote earlier, I would never had said there weren't any.
  12. Must it be perfectly literal? I have a full head of hair, even at age 67. It's gone quite gray, but it's pretty much all there. My 28-year old stepson has classic male pattern baldness. It's perfectly natural for him to be this way. What will he get in the resurrection? Will there be balding resurrected beings? Also, what about baby teeth? Will they be restored? Or the permanent teeth? Do Downs-syndrome people get to keep their condition? We get "restored", do we not? If a Downs person is restored, surely they must therefore be resurrected Downs, right? (I actually had someone I know claim that they did. As if it were a good thing, since they are so sweet.) I tend to think of the resurrection as a restoration to what we should and would have been, if things had been perfect. So someone born blind or deaf won't be resurrected blind, and deaf just because he was that way from the beginning.
  13. I do understand where you are coming from. But I disagree with you. As does Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith. And so also does the Church, apparently, since the quote from BY does appear in correlated doctrinal teaching materials issued by the Church. They could have disagreed with Pres. Young and omitted that bit in the manual where he is quoted as saying resurrected beings don't have blood. They certainly have omitted any mention of Adam-God. But in one sense, what does it matter? Blood or no blood, it will be what it will be. So perhaps disputing over it is a waste of time.
  14. Well, how many do you think there are, and aside from Judas, can you name any?