Seminarysnoozer
-
Posts
3421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Seminarysnoozer
-
-
Maybe it's that anthropocentristic thinking that distracs us from greater insights. The reality is much grander and God has more grandeur (I like these American adjecives and nouns that sprang from French) than our imagination is even able to recognize and understand. It's my insight that the power of God even can make things and events unhappen. What is a universe for HIM? There was a terrible event that has struck you or you've heard about it on the news and you can't forget it? Perhaps one day you wake up in another "reality" and your life will be similar to your actual life but without that event. It doesn't exist and it has never been existing. This gives me an answer on the old question why God allows the evil and awful things to happen. HE can wipe them away, simply delete them, the way our conciousness fades down when we die and wake up in a better world filled with HIS divine love and mercy.
I believe there is a divine plan, and evolution is a part of this plan, so we shouldn't see evolution in contradiction with the creationism, but more as a result of it. And who can say God's creation has come to an end yet? The universe will still be lasting for billions of years, and who knows what mankind's destination will be? Will Jesus be sent to Earth and the Millenium will begin (but what is a millenium in comparison to eternity...?) or will God send us to the stars and enable mankind one day for interstellar journeys, through spacetime, and will HE offer us HIS universe with its uncountable galaxies and worlds...? I don't know.
I would think that most LDS scientists that believe in evolution and therefore also believe in creation would say that evolution is a result of the Fall of Adam and Eve and not as a result of the creation. One would have to show that evolution was taking place in the Garden of Eden to say that evolution comes from the creation and that would be even harder to prove than it already is. I would venture to say there was no evolution going on in the Garden of Eden as there was no death. From my understanding, death has to take place to have evolution. Death was brought on by the Fall of Adam and Eve. The Fall was made possible by the creation but is not a direct result of the creation. The Fall was a transgression - an act against the laws established by the creation, falling outside of the laws of creation. We now live outside the laws of creation, which is a fallen world.
-
I would suggest that you council the L-rd on his improper use of the word "exalted" in scripture. (D&C 63:55)
Obviously when I talked about an exalted spirit - I was not talking about exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Likewise the L-rd was not indicating that Sidney Rigdon was Celestializing himself.
Again, you tend to see things as all or nothing, black and white, ones and zeros. There are many examples of many words that are used for various meanings, even the word "spirit is used for various meanings. This is why I explained to you that "If that is how exaltation is defined then ...." I specifically clarified the definition I was using, if that definition then. You are trying to use it as an all or nothing definition and then trying to pin me down on the "one" definition as if there are no others. I have already said, it depends on how you are using the word. It took you this long to say "I was not talking about exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom" even though there was repeated effort to have you specify that.
If you agree there is different uses of the word then you would have to agree that the condition of being "exalted" depending on its use could be describing different states of being. There is only one of those uses that goes along with the state of being in which there is no more falling from that state which is the type of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. You were talking about a different type of exalted state, for example, when you mentioned that you thought Lucifer was once exalted and fell from that state. I am okay with that because I realize there are different uses of the word "exalted".
-
Are you saying gender is a deficiency unless someone is married to someone of the opposite gender? If so - there are element of that concept I find incredibly brilliant - especially on a combination of a spiritual and physical level (since we cannot be married as spirits - thus the need for temple work). This bring so much that I have never before considered and intend to study in great detail.
PS - I do think there are things that can be "hidden" from G-d. Not so much that he cannot go somewhere to observe something as that he will not.
Yes, thanks, one of the requirements for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is to be represented by two genders, to be married. If that is a requirement then, yes a lack of one of the genders, a deficiency of gender causes a limitation of growth for the individual.
I think one of the biggest hang-ups of many religions is a concept that somehow God could be a God as an individual. God may refer to the collective (I hate using that term because it has so many negative connotations) as an individual because maybe, at that level (this is hard to comprehend) that is what is meant by loving neighbor as self, as if the whole is one being. There is no need to separate Heavenly Mother from a Heavenly Father because it is one in their eyes. To call it as such is to say something less than the one "God". We believe that an individual could never become like God while remaining as an individual.
To me it is like saying that Michael Jordon was a good basketball team. Or that Lionel Messi is a good soccer team. No he is not, he would probably make a horrible goal keeper. A team could be a good team but an individual cannot be a good team. Likewise, an individual cannot make a God but a group of them can. It requires a social organization to make God. Some may see that as blasphemous but that is how I understand our gospel.
-----
So, please, go ahead and explain why you think or what you think could be hidden from God (now that you have made such a bold statement).
-
You inference of the seeing all things/knowing all things, etc., to my thinking, translates into a weird sounding hive-mind collective in the way you express it. It's not bad. It's just the way I read what you express. Calling it borg is only to be silly, not critical. If I have a criticism of your views, it's only that you presume things as factual that we don't know to be factual. You have a point of view...fine...and you express it as the obvious clear absolute proper view...not fine.
I don't deny that your view is a possibility. I don't call it bad or evil (in spite of the borg joke...which was really more to use the emoticon than anything). I do not agree with it, however, partly because it is doing just as you say (though you cannot seem to see it) by applying mortal perception to immortality.
Generally I tend towards the "we don't know" point of view on what the Celestial existence will be like, because the fact is just that. All the rest is speculative. I do find it slightly problematic to express speculative ideas as if theyr'e factual -- something I find you and traveler both guilty of in many of your debates. (And, just to be clear and fair, I'm sure I'm guilty in times past as well).
I do seem to have a stronger perception of roles and individuality in the eternities than you (per my understanding of your view...which, as I said, I may well misunderstand). I do not think becoming "one" means what you think it does. I see your approach as odd. But that is not to say it is wrong. I am, as you are, only speculating. Because we really don't know. The existence of an exalted being is so far beyond our capability to grasp that any description of it falls flat to me.
To be clear, I think the female role in the eternities will be to bear and raise spirit children and that the male role will be to create universes for them. I do not think both these things are equally shared duties any more than I feel the roles we have in this life are equally shared duties. I do not believe that we will be "equal" any more than we are "equal" now...not because of capability, worth, or unequal joy, but because we (the genders) will find the fullness of our joy in different ways due to the eternal nature and character of our gender.
It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, (and I find it a "wacky" concept to push) that inheriting all the Father has is 100% literal. Just as if I inherit all my worldly father has, I may get his money, his house, his intelligence, his propensity to prostate problems, etc. But my sister does not become my daughter, and my mother does not become my wife. I become as my father is. I don't become my father.
However, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe "all" means "all". Literally. All. And we'll all be married to everybody, be everybody's father, mother, sister, and brother, all will be women and all well be men, all create all the worlds together, all raise all spirit children created by all other exalted beings, and when one of us is communicating with their children, all the other billions upon billion of other beings exalted throughout the eons are right there with us giving the same communication.
Maybe.
Ok, thanks for your explanation, ... a little taken back by the whole reference to the fictional antagonist race that uses violence and force to become "perfect" - the borg, as your perception of my views.
I mean, if you have a problem with someone having the ability to know your every thought, passion, experience in such an intimate way than just say that.
There is no twisting of the truth or it being just my viewpoint that God can know all that we think, feel, experience etc. Don't you believe that? Or do you believe that there are things we can hide from God?
If you believe that as fact, as truth there is no real distance to the idea that anyone who receives the fullness of His glory would have similar ability. We are certainly not talking about all the additional, stereotyped images that go along with a borg-like motif of a violent conquering force that does it with evil power mongering intentions. It is the complete opposite. Only those that want to be in such a system are included.
There is a place designed for all those that want to remain separate and isolated from each other, it is described like the stars, as one star is separated from another. We will get what we desire. So, to contemplate what we desire, to be as one vs separation is not just a fun philosophical exercises. It is to better understand why we want to be like God. What are His traits that make the desire to be like Him so attractive. If one finds the ability to experience anothers experience as if they were there offensive then I think that is a factor that drives away from wanting to be like God. The most important act of Christ was to experience the agony of our sins. How could that ability, then, illicit a "we don't know" attitude?
Yes, we do know and testify that Christ felt the agony of our sins, every one of us. This is not an unknown trait of God.
I think these are very important points of the gospel that are fairly well established and important for the experession of our desire to be like that.
-
I'll grant it may be a misunderstanding. But your views are...well...I put it in another thread...somewhat borg-ish.
There are a lot of examples of how people view our religion through worldly eyes and through the twisting of something good into something bad. How many times do we get called a cult? It may be that our religion sounds cult-ish but we know that to not be true. It may sound like our religion is racist-ish but we know that to not be true. We are sometimes told that our religion is sexist-ish but we know that is not true. Maybe the united order sounds communist-ish. Not sure what your point is to say that it sounds borg-ish other than to try to paint it as negative when you can't give specifics as to why it is negative.
Is it negative that God can know our every thought and that we can't hide anything from Him? Is it negative that Jesus could experience the pain of our sins? Is it bizarre that He could do such a thing? A little, but that doesn't make it negative. Is it negative to try to feel what others feel, to mourn with those that mourn etc? If those things are not negative then don't paint it with a negative spin. It is not a bad thing to enjoy the successes of others as if they were our own. If it were not so then Jesus could not be our mediator, we could not enjoy His success on our behalf. He did it for us as if it was us and paid our debt as if we paid it to God directly. The price for that is to become one with Christ which is not a bad thing.
-
I am obviously not understanding your terms or the very long explanation which seems to avoid the specific problem I am trying to address. Please explain what you mean by "deficiency of gender".
Also there are other concepts that confuse me a little from your explanation. Do you believe gender is physical and not spiritual? Is there is anything spiritual to be attached to gender - could you please explain your view on pre physical spiritual gender?
Also it appears to me that you are saying that we will all be resurrected to G-d's physical body - that in the resurrection we inherit his body which has no "deficiency of gender" . Am I understanding you correctly or do I need to better understand what you mean by "one" body? Do you mean "one" body like in a marriage a man and a woman become "one" flesh or do you mean one body that does not differentiate gender? Or do we in essence inherit all G-d has in regards to purpose - not physical presents or gender?
I am trying to understand what you are saying to me. Because I am dyslexic sometimes I interpret things backwards so I have to ask questions to be sure I got your point - I think you are saying we symbolically inherit all of G-d's purpose but I am trying to determine if your definition of all goes beyond sysmoblism and that it is possible that we can go to the extreme and realize that we actually get everything G-d has - including his gender and his body?
Part of the vague description is because we don't know the details. So, I don't know entirely. What I know is that we will maintain our gender identity in the next life. For those few that have eternal marriage, there will be a special bond between one male and one female. Speaking of that bond specifically, there is no gender lacking within that bond, there is both a male and a female. There is no deficiency of either one. It is required of us to be in the bonds of eternal marriage to be like God. I am assuming then that God exists in the same type of bond, a male and female together type bond, the type of bond that is not just male or not just female, there is no deficiency of gender.
Identity and conectiveness can be two different things. I think the limit of our understanding is based in the limit of our charity. To have true love of Christ one would have to know the person intimately. To know someone at that level is the same as knowing them as self, almost as if they were self (Charity and the second most important commandment). That is not to say that one could not draw the line between self and others or that the person physically becomes one with the other but that there is no separation of mine vs theirs. Like I asked in the other thread, is there anything you can think of that you can hide from God, any experience, any thought, any proprietary anything? Even as a woman, could I hide what it is like to bear children from God? Could I hide a female trait from God? If you say no, then you believe it is possible to experience both genders as if self. If you say yes it can be hidden, then you would have to believe that God is not all knowing, that there is a limitation or a deficiency based in gender, for example. I am saying I don't believe there is a deficiency based in gender, both genders are represented in God as God has to be in an eternal marriage.
-
If you interpret "hanging out" in a way other than wasting time chatting about meaningless drivel, sure. Hanging out can be part of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of others.
This is not what I meant by "hanging out" though. Clearly -- because we're talking about two folk hanging out in lower kingdoms, wherein they've already lost their eternal life, and hanging out won't improve that situation. Hanging out, in such a case, cannot be viewed as a means to true joy. True joy will not exist anywhere except in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
Your idea of eternal life is strange.
We are not Borg.
Resistance is futile.
There are degrees of joy, it is not an all or nothing thing. However, there is a difference between eternal joy, joy without end, in other words, joy that is limitless versus joy that is limited.
As far as the borg reference goes, Satan loves to twist truths into things that sound bad and things that sound bad into things that are good. The negative connotations are man-made created by the evil intentions of man. God does not have evil intentions and I wouldn't paint the ability to have charity (to love someone as self and to feel their suffering and their experiences to that level) as some evil force. To mourn with those that mourn, for Jesus to feel our pains as we did is in no way related to some Star Trek man made idea of that ability.
Can you hide any experience from God, can you hide any thought from God, can you hide any desire from God, can God not see what you have learned and your progress, your joys and happiness, not only see them but feel them, experience them?
IOne may think this sounds like the borg, then so be it but that perception is jaded by the evil intentions of man; "12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."
And this sounds really borg-like for those that see it that way, (Alma 7) "11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me."
How about this "borg like" description of those in the Celestial Kingdom; (D&C 130) " But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.
8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.
9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.
10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;
11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word."
If one does not like the idea of being in a place where all is known and all is clear, like a crystal and all things are continually before the Lord, then they will make it sound like a horrible thing. The individual that doesn't like that idea would prefer to hide from God or believe even that they could hide from God.
If God has the ability to see all things; no experience, no perspective, no thought, no understanding, no learning is hidden from him (this includes all the thoughts of all the people) then why would you think that anybody who achieves the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom would not also have that ability? If you want to say that sounds more borg-like than Celestial then you are allowing the carnal mind to overpower the truth of the spirit and letting it seem like something bad instead of good. I think the idea of knowing everyone around us so initmately (which is charity) is a beautiful thing and a Celestial thing and to me the opposite of any evil borg-like description.
-
Haven't you two been over this before (What inheriting all God has as it relates to Gender)? I'm having major deja vu.
SemSnooz's views on gender in the Celestial Kingdom are wacky. I seem to recall that from before too.
What are my views on gender? I think you are misinterpreting what I said.
I believe in gender in the Celestial Kingdom, male and female. What is wacky about that?
-
Wow - I must admit I did not expect this answer. I am a little stunned!!! Just to clarify - you believe gender to be a deficiency? And that in the Celestial Kingdom we will all share (be one with) the same exact physical body?
:huh: You asked if I would inherit God's gender. My answer was there would be no deficiency of gender there because to arrive there one would have to be in an eternal marriage with one of the opposite gender, together as one. In that way, both genders are accounted for, there is no lacking, no deficiency of anything provided by gender to either of the two of opposite genders.
If the soul of man is both spirit and body combined inseparably as opposed to the soul of man just being the spirit alone then that means that God's body adds to His soul, something that His spirit alone could not provide. If we were to be like God in every way we would also have the characteristics that would come from His body, especially the aspects that are not provided to the character of his "soul" by the spirit alone.
If somehow your spirit started this life in my body or visa versa, do you think you would act and think and even be the same person you are now or would there be a difference in traits, manerisms, even thought patterns and decisions?
I do not believe there to be only one body but it sounds to me that there is only one type of body found in the Celestial Kingdom. We could all have individual copies of the same type. How many types of bodies did God create in paradise? One Adam and one Eve, with Eve coming from Adam as if they were one. This is the way it has always been done, the same bodies created. Resurrection restores the body to its original creation without one thing lost from its original creation. It has always been done this way, God does not vary. Corruption varies in its course and direction. Narrow is the path and single is the path that leads to God because God's path is single and doesn't vary.
Maybe there is something more to having His image in our countenance. Maybe there is something more to the idea of being in the express image of his Father. Why was Seth and Abel in the express image of their father and not Cain? Why do the scriptures even mention that they were in the "express image" of their father. What difference does that make? It would make a difference if the body also adds to the character as we say it does. Why did Christ have to be the Only Begotten? Could He not have gotten the job done with your body or mine for that matter? Probably not. Why is that?
-
Not sure you realize what you answered - since you believe you inherit "all" that G-d has -- Do you believe you will inherit his body and his gender? If not then you really do not believe you will inherit all that is his?????
To inherit what He has I would have to have an eternal marriage. My husband and I would be bound, would be one and we would share all. There would be no deficiency of gender there. In the Celestial resurrection, we are told, the body is one, like the sun is one. The Telestial Kingdom is the one in which there are varied bodies as one star differs from another. So, yes, I think it is possible to inherit all that God has. Possibly that is the whole purpose of the body and resurrection. That may be the "zip drive" so-to-speak, that allows the passage of "self" to receive it as inheritance.
We already understand that an infant inherits the ability to suckle and to cry. What natural abilities come with a resurrected Celestial body, especially if it is the same one God received upon His presumed resurrection?
Atheletes often proclaim "praise God" for what He has given me, this talent, whenever they achieve. We say things like where much is given much is required. Well was it given or was it acquired? I think we believe it is given. How? By way of our body. The parable of the ten talents reflects that ability to give abilities, to give stewardships. How is it given? Is it just an assignment or are we actually given the "talents". I think that is something to ponder. If one believes "talents" can be given in this life then they certainly could be given in the next life. If we are faithful in small things here we will be given larger responsibilities in the next - this could be the same as the parable of the 10 talents, if we are faithful in the 5 talents we will be "given" additional ones in the next life. Given, as opposed to develop. Yes, that is possible, we already believe it. I doubt the infant child had the ability to cry in the pre-mortal life. If one says there is nothing new gained by the body then the purpose of the body is taken away. We know the body adds to our soul, to our character, not just to our reach.
-
Right. I don't necessarily disagree. My point is simply that the idea that true happiness comes from shallow ideas like creating art, hanging out with buddies, or skipping through the daisies is silly.
Hanging out with buddies might. True happiness is finding joy in the success of others. True happiness is hardly ever something personally achieved but instead living beyond self. This is why the greatest commandments are to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as self. If everyone around us is "self" then true happiness can be achieved. Gods joy comes from the success of others, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
-
lets ask another question - you think you will inherit all G-d has? Will you inherit his body? His gender? Or do you and G-d and you will keep some things just for yourselves? If you remain unique - what do you not inherit and why does scripture say we inherit all?
As to the first question - something living in this existence implies growth and change. What does living or life mean to you with your mortal understanding? - why not say G-d is eternally conscious? Does not "living" imply a physical presents and occupation of empirical space time in this universe? Does G-d use terms that we understand in our present but in reality or on an eternal scale or in the big picture will deliberately deceive mortals?
Just so others reading this realize, these are questions to which the answers have not yet been revealed so these are just my personal opinions. I think, yes, I would inherit all that God has if I were fortunate enough to make it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. I believe it is a state of being in which all is shared, all thoughts, all passions, all experience, all glory. How that is done is a different question that I cannot comprehend right now. We have demonstrated this ability which is what occured with the atonement, Christ was able to "experience" the acts of others. This is a very powerful gift and ability that would only be available to those whom have endless increase. If increase is based in the success of others as we are told, such as the glory of God being the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, then I would expect that to also be my source of eternal happiness in that situation. This is made possible by having the pure love of Christ, loving others as self. Then it is possible to "experience" all that another does. I believe we will have individual bodies but the experience is shared. I also (again, not yet revealed) believe that "God" refers to our Heavenly Father and Mother as a unit and this is why the family unit is so important to Him in our increasing understanding of what brings Him happiness. I believe that unit is so strong that it would be hard to speak of them as being separate and this is why, likely, a Heavenly Mother is not spoken of in separate terms.
Yes, God has to use terms that we would understand, "according to the flesh". We are tested here "according to the flesh" not according to some other higher standard of understanding such as what took place in the first estate test. The first estate test was done with full capacity and understanding of the principles of the gospel and the "secular", fund of knowledge, having matured fully and learned all we possibly could, test. This test is not of that kind. This test is a test of character, not a fund of knowledge test where having terms explained in detail would be important.
In my past work experiences we would test patients as to their ability for abstract thought processing. For example we would ask them, what does a person mean by saying "if the cat's away the mice will play"? In some forms of dementia a person has concrete thinking and they would respond with something like, 'don't let the cat out' as opposed to the real meaning of the phrase. Did Jesus desire to decieve when He spoke in parables? No. I think his answer is appropriate for the questions you ask about terms we can understand, "11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."
To understand things in this way is the test. How do we understand things, with a spiritual mind or a physical brain understanding? Blessed are they that see, through spiritual eyes and hear through spiritual ears. How we hear and see and understand is the test more than how much we see and hear.
-
So your stand is - since we cannot - we should not (it is immoral) even strive to understand G-d or his creations? What can we (worthless dust) believe that is true? Why does G-d tell us anything if we cannot in truth comprehend it in this "small moment"?
And my last question - how can you or anyone else, claim to {have eternal perspectives and see the "big picture"} based on your arguments? -- without exalting yourself and not humbling yourself?
It is all about how it is received. How things are received is dependent on purpose. If one has an eye single to the glory of God then God can provide answers to issues that would advance His cause. If it is done in the spirit of advancing the status of man, man is great, lets build a tower to reach God type-of-attitude, then it is wrong. Spiritual things are learned spiritually, temporal things are learned in temporal ways. Man cannot reach God without divine intervention, that is what is meant by man is nothing. The path to God is reached in humility as to our own nothingness.
How much of what you are talking about do you think we already learned before coming here in the eons and eons we had in the presence of God learning all things until we were fully matured and ready to move onto the next step?
How much of what you learned before coming here will flood back into your mind after this second estate test is over?
Don't you imagine that we learned all the natural sciences before coming here, we learned way more than the sum total of what man could ever learn? All the advancements of man, as great as they may seem are like when my Preschooler comes home having written her name (or even less than that) compared to one with advanced degrees.
This isn't to say we shouldn't study all things and advance our knowledge as much as we can. But understand the purpose of those things. It isn't to amass knowledge because we have already learned all these things in the life before and it will all come back to us but it is in the process of learning to depend on the Lord in humility that the lessons are learned. Remember the scripture in D&C 130 says; " 19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." In other words, the lessons learned are via the effect of learning through dilligence and obedience, learning those skills that translates to the advantage in the next life. If someone learns quantum physics in this life without being obedient or dilligent to the Lord then it is not to their advantage in the next life. Why? because they really didn't learn anything they didn't already learn in the pre-mortal life.
-
Those who have eternal perspectives and see the "big picture" have statements such as these; Mosiah 4; " 2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men."
King Benjamin stated; "always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness."
Enoch stated; "Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations."
President Uchtdorf said; "
Years later, on the top of a distant mountain, far removed from the splendor and magnificence of mighty Egypt, Moses stood in the presence of God and spoke to Him face to face as a man speaks with his friend.1 During the course of that visitation, God showed Moses the workmanship of His hands, granting him a glimpse of His work and glory. When the vision ended, Moses fell to the earth for the space of many hours. When his strength finally returned, he realized something that, in all his years in Pharaoh’s court, had never occurred to him before.
“I know,” he said, “that man is nothing.”2
We Are Less Than We Suppose
The more we learn about the universe, the more we understand—at least in a small part—what Moses knew. The universe is so large, mysterious, and glorious that it is incomprehensible to the human mind. “Worlds without number have I created,” God said to Moses.3 The wonders of the night sky are a beautiful testimony of that truth."
President Uchtdorf warned against believing that we could reach the heights of God as a man (or woman); "Disciples of Jesus Christ understand that compared to eternity, our existence in this mortal sphere is only “a small moment” in space and time.10 They know that a person’s true value has little to do with what the world holds in high esteem. They know you could pile up the accumulated currency of the entire world and it could not buy a loaf of bread in the economy of heaven. Those who will “inherit the kingdom of God”11 are those who become “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love.”12 “For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”13 Such disciples understand also “that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.”
-
So in essence you do not believe that something living can grow? That a living G-d cannot and should not grow?
That is a very vague question. Grow in what way? Grow in size, grow in stature, grow in wisdom, grow in glory? What are you asking?
God is fully matured, so in that sense He does not grow.
-
I realise that the following is quite a diversion from the OP but I'm going to say it anyway, and if it proves to be sufficiently interesting, perhaps someone could make it into a new post.
The idea that as Man now is God once was and as God now is man may become suggests the possibility that there are many ex-men out there who are now gods of some sort, and that some of them, or maybe all of them, pre-date our God. If that is the case, no doubt they would also have their own kingdoms and their kingdoms might be territories into which our God's kingdom(s?) could not rightfully expand.
I doubt the expansion is in terms of territory. We know, at least in part, that God's glory is in the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. This does not require an ever expanding amount of territory.
I also disagree with the premise that each "God" would have their own proprietary territory. I would believe that it is all shared as one. In fact, that would be a nice reasonable explanation of how God could have once been like man and yet be eternal. If God's inheritance was all that His Father had, then He would have received everything before Him as if He had made those accomplishments Himself (becoming one with His Father). In that way, there would be no division of territory either. The separation of territory is not Celestial in nature, that is more like the Telestial Kingdom as one star differs from another and is separate.
-
The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself. This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within. The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon. The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time. Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).
Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere. That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe. The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy. And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back. Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within. ---- Are you impressed yet?
The premise that first has to be established is that spirit matter is supposed to do something physical to course matter. What is it supposed to do? I don't know if that is really established in our doctrine. If it has any effect it likely is in terms of making organic things "alive". Is that what dark matter does, gives life to organic material?
Why wouldn't protons or electrons or neutrons or any other subatomic particle fit that bill just as well?
There is course matter and everything that pertains to its natural existence (which it sounds like dark matter is a part of) and then there is fine matter which is its own system that can exist separately from course matter and does not require course matter to be stable in its system. So, one test of any particular theory about what is fine matter or not is answering if it could exist by itself.
-
The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself. This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within. The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon. The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time. Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).
Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere. That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe. The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy. And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back. Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within. ---- Are you impressed yet?
Yes, good explanation. I am not inclined to think it represents spirit matter but that is okay, still interesting.
-
My reference to King Nebuchadnezzar was not his dream but the "finger" writing on the wall.
As for dark matter - its initial designation was the "Great Attractor". The reason was because something unseen was pulling the largest (at the time) structure (a super cluster of galaxies that prior to the Hubble telescope was thought to be a faint star) in the universe - a super cluster the wrong direction in the vast arena of distant space. I would point out that the particular super cluster of galaxies was by itself bigger than what scientist believed the entire universe was as resent as 100 years ago.
As scientist have studied our universe they have discovered another force that is expanding the universe at an ever accelerating rate. They call this expansion force "dark energy" Beyond observing the far reaches of the universe no one has found any other evidence of dark mater or dark energy. They are called dark because they cannot be see by any means know - yet. But what we do know is that this mater and energy is the single most dominant forces ever encountered that is directly involved in the creating and sustaining our universe and it is unlike any matter or energy we have ever before encountered.
Are we seeing evidence of divine elements and forces at work? If divine elements and forces are at work - isn't it about time we discovered some indication (empirical evidence) of it? From your vast research - especially into scripture and modern revelation - what other possibilities are there? What is moving and shaping our universe - G-d or something that is just happening by some sort of chance?
What makes you think that expansion forces (a force that makes matter become further appart - less fine) is a better candidate for spirit matter than a force that attracts?
Before you start to say that the "expansion of the universe" is something divine you will first have to explain that there is some territory out there that is not within God's reach that would need to have expansion of material to reach it. That premise is bizarre to me, that there needs to be some physical expansion of His realm. If it is already within His reach then there is no real "expansion" going on and therefore should not be used as some divine attribute of this dark matter.
-
There are many topics that don't interest me on this forum that I simply read but don't make any comments. There is nothing wrong with that. There are times I re-read the scriptures and find something that I have read many times over that now has a different significance to me at this time in my life and maybe I only appreciate that level of understanding after I have enough of a foundation to build on. There are topics, obviously, that I discuss over and over again that others, I am sure, find boring.
Like my name states, I slept through seminary class, so now I discuss all the things I wish I would have before. Thanks for the discussion. I mean that.
-
"We" cannot see radio waves either but thanks to the revelation given to mankind through Einstein it is possible to empirically understand and calculate that radio waves are just another kind of matter.
Here are a few questions - during the 1,000 year reign of Christ will any mortals see any spirit matter? Did the Brother of Jared see any spirit matter? Did Nephi see any spirit matter? Did King Nebuchadnezzar see any spirit matter? Can G-d show man spirit matter?
I submit the the term "we cannot see" is symbolic of something - that may be missing from this conversation.
It is not so symbolic as you think as it is described in the same verse 8, "when our bodies are purified" suggests that the "we" refers to those that do not have purified bodies. During the 1000 year reign the bodies of those people obviously change from our current state as they do not die. As for King Nebuchadnezzar, seeing in a dream is not the same as seeing matter. In any case, whenever there is a claim of seeing spirit matter and we believe it to be true, I would suggest there has been some kind of transformation of the body or of the spirit matter being viewed. There is no teaching that course matter and fine matter have existed together forever, just under temporary conditions do they interact.
In all those descriptions of spirit matter seen, take the brother of Jared for example, tell me, in your view, how their descriptions suggest "dark matter" is what they are seeing. Please go ahead and explain that (The Folk Prophet needs this to be a little more entertaining).
To me it would take a wild imagination to suggest that what they saw was "dark matter". For that matter why don't we call it just about anything, how about jiggly matter (like green jello) that is just as likely. Why don't we call it spirit goo? Lets call spirit matter "midi-chlorians" for fun and for speculation - that would be just as correct as "dark matter" would. As I "saw" it in a movie, it must be real.
-
-
Just a couple of thoughts about seeing with purity. Jesus taught that it is possible to have eyes perfectly capable of seeing but could not see. Likewise ears perfectly capable of hearing but not hearing. It may be a bit presumptuous to assume that there is no possible empirical evidence of spiritual things.
We also learn form scripture that "all things" created and that exist give testimony that there is a G-d that created our universe. Thus it is possible that some will consider and study the new evidence of dark matter and dark energy and come out of their effort with greater understanding of G-d and his work of creation and salvation. At the same time others may look at the exact same data and see no such possibilities?
Is dark matter and dark energy evidence of G-d and spiritual understanding of things. Does G-d use the empirical evidences of physical things of our fallen universe to testify of truths including spirituals truths. It appears to me that you are of the opinion that to believe such a possibility is at it heart and core the definition and essence of evil as put forth as the natural man in scripture - I am of a much different opinion - I believe that even our progressing spirit become more G-d like and pure by seeing the good in all physical things and empirical discoveries. Purity is not so much as being able to see but to understand what it is we are seeing.
You are changing the topic. The OP was about relating the spirit matter to the Big Bang - to course matter observations. The questions are related to whether these two types of matter had similar beginnings. We are not talking about whether course matter can testify of God's creation or be spiritually enlightening to us. The discussion is not about whether course matter things can help our spiritual understanding of things or not - of course they can, that is why we are here. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
We are told in many examples in the scriptures how we may be able to see spiritual matter (not talking about understanding spiritual concepts). D&C; "
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."
What does the word "We" represent in verse 8? Mortal man. "When our bodies are purified" refers to what happens when we are not mortal man any longer, after resurrection. Unless we have some resurrected scientist view about dark matter, I would suggest that in no way could be spiritual or fine matter.
-
Are you saying scientists are impure?
No that would be judgemental. Simply saying that the science of man is impure as it is seen through impure eyes.
What has to happen to make our eyes pure? Typically some kind of transfiguration such as when a person says something of this sort, 'whether I was in the body or not, I am no sure'. Or they describe being 'carried away' etc. In other words, if the scientist is remaining in her normal mortal state, I would venture to say that things are being looked at while "in the flesh" and 'according to the flesh' which is by definition impure eyes.
This is not a judgement on the spirit of the person as that is a very different thing and sad that people would take it as such. We all live in the world even though we don't have to be of the world. We all live in an impure state even though we don't have to remain impure.
If there was a revelation as to character of fine matter I am sure it wouldn't come in the form of descriptions through impure eyes any more than I would believe that a person describing being abducted by Aliens proves there are Aliens. It is at best a hypothetical description and not an actual experience.
If I state that course matter cannot detect fine matter that does not mean that fine matter cannot be aware of the course matter. (Just in case someone throws out the argument that we are both spirit and body and so they have to interact) It could be a one way interaction, until the veil is pulled back but the "veil being pulled back" implies there is no natural awareness of fine matter from the perspective of the course matter.
Three "truths"?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
If all one does is focus on "doing what God does" one might miss the underlying reason for why God does what He does. I think the issue is to better understand the reasons behind why God's glory is related to bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man. If God's glory was just dependent on what He does then He could be alone, by Himself and do many great things but obviously what we learn from things like the gospel of charity and the greatest commandments being love God and love thy neighbor as self is that joy is bigger than self. How is that? Why is that?
If joy is limited to one's own achievements alone, it is limiting. If joy can be expanded to include receiving joy from someone else' achievement it become limitless. Isn't that what we learn from Christ' atonement - an act from someone else that we can enjoy the benefits of. And isn't that what we learn from the statement that God's work and glory comes from the achievements of His children?
It is not so much what God does but where He finds His happiness and source of endless joy. The whole thing only works when one loves another so much that they can feel what they feel. How can one mourn with those that mourn unless one knows that someone is mourning? How can you know that? Sometimes it is not by just what is observed. It is by knowing someone so intimately that one can tell what they are feeling on the inside. What is the purpose of visiting teaching and home teaching - it is a chance to know those that we teach on an intimate level more than what would happen just with the short time in church meetings so that we can "feel" what they feel at some small level. So we start to learn this vital trait and skill that is found in the Celestial Kingdom. This is what is meant by Charity.
Can one have charity without understanding what another feels, experiencing what they experience, at least on some level? That is at the core of charity and is what is in abundance in the Celestial Kingdom.