askandanswer

Members
  • Content Count

    3379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

askandanswer last won the day on February 25

askandanswer had the most liked content!

About askandanswer

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday October 12

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Australia
  • Religion
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

5003 profile views
  1. askandanswer

    Think about it...

    A response to situations such as this is to identify the companies involved and buy shares in them. That way you can personally benefit from all the disruption to come.
  2. askandanswer

    Neutrinos

    @JohnsonJones what you have described from a theological perspective very closely matches what the cosmologists call the bouncing universe theory, or the big bounce theory. In the Big Bounce theory, the universe is expanding and contracting, seesawing back and forth in a massively big-picture timeline. Some bouncers believe this happened just once, while others believe a cyclical bouncing is what makes our universe. https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a34941841/big-bounce-universe-theory/
  3. askandanswer

    Neutrinos

    The one which will fold first will be the one whose adherents do not hold fast
  4. askandanswer

    Neutrinos

    bbDoctrine and Covenants teaches that 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; (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 131:7) Big Bang theory postulates that “In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms.” https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe (I note that it is the nuclei, the building blocks of matter, that “trapped” or took control over, or possession of, the energy, although it is possible that there was some form of attraction, possibly gravity, that attracted, or enticed, the electrons) So if BB is true, and if Doctrine and Covenants 131:7 is true it would suggest that our spirits could not have existed prior to the creation of matter, which may have started 380,000 years after the BB. However, this does not answer the question about the nature or existence of intelligence, which as you have pointed out in Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 cannot be created or made. The only other “thing” that I can think of as having the property of not being able to be created or destroyed is energy. The singularity was a point of infinite energy (not matter) density. So inside the singularity, prior to the expansion, there was infinite energy and no matter. 380,00 years after the beginning of the expansion, matter began to form when energy, in the form of electrons, began to join with nuclei. So from the perspective of cosmology, we have one process whereby pre-existing, uncontrolled, freely roaming energy, in the form of electrons, combined with nuclei to form newly created matter, of which our spirits are made, according to Doctrine and Covenants 131:7. This meant that that energy thereby became subject to the laws which control matter. By becoming a part of matter, that energy also acquired the potential to become far more than it could have if it had continued to exist as an electron, in which state if would have remained forever if it remained by itself The combined, organized, building blocks of matter - the nuclei, consisting of protons and neutrons - took control of the pre-existing, independently existing electrons to become matter. The addition of that energy, in the form of one or more electrons to the nuclei, is what enabled that nuclei to progress to become matter. From the perspective of theology, we have another process whereby pre-existing intelligences, which existed independently of God, combined with something, possibly matter, which, by obedience to the relevant laws, then enabled that matter to become spirits. (See Doctrine and Covenants 88:34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.) Perhaps neither the intelligences nor the matter could have progressed on their own to become spirits without combining with each other but by combining together and by obedience to law, they acquired the ability to change and progress to a degree far greater than if they had remained alone. These two processes may in fact be one process, viewed from different perspectives. A linking factor is the fact that neither intelligences or energy can be created or destroyed, and these are the only two things of which I think this can be said. Another possible linking factor from a cosmological perspective is that it was the matter, or its building blocks, that seem to have had the dominant role in the process, rather than the independently existing electrons, and the idea that the electrons were in some way attracted to, or enticed to combine with the nuclei. This matches well with the theological perspective that it was the components that were organized by God – the matter – that had the dominant role in the process over the intelligences, and that it was somehow a “choice” of the energy to join itself with the matter. (See 2 Nephi 2:16) A problem for cosmologists is what initiated the BB. A theological answer would be God, or perhaps the gods. I suspect that a lot of power would be needed to control something as powerful as a singularity and to overcome the gravity that held it bound. Perhaps assistance from other gods would have been helpful. If God was involved in the initiation of the BB, and if the whole universe was a result of the BB, that would provide a concise answer to the question of how was God able to create everything, or the question of how were the gods involved in the creation of everything. On the first, or even the second, third or fourth readings, it might appear that this is pure, speculative nonsense. However, after a fifth reading, it might appear to be not entirely without merit and therefor worthy of further consideration. As a side note, and I don’t won’t to get bogged down in this part of the discussion, cosmologists believe that the laws of general relativity break down at the point of singularity so whatever Einstein had to say on the subject doesn’t apply. I think this short article explains it well. https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
  5. askandanswer

    Neutrinos

    I think there is a lot that physics, astronomy and theology can learn from each other. One example: From theology, we learn that 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. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:7) From cosmology we learn Neutrinos reveal final secret of Sun’s nuclear fusion Detection of particles produced by the Sun’s core supports long-held theory about how our star is powered. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01908-2 Its probable that for more informed and knowledgeable people than myself, these two ideas may be sufficient to draw some semi-tentative conclusions, which in turn could be used to build less tentative conclusions about how God does what He does, and the uses and sources of His power.
  6. askandanswer

    Neutrinos

    Joseph Smith taught that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Big bang theory teaches that matter only came into existence about 370,000 years after the big bang. Both cannot be correct. We have to either change the theology or change the astronomy.
  7. askandanswer

    Am extremely important question

    Its hard to be certain who is right, but one thing we can be sure of: since the babes were saying great and marvellous things, they would have been speaking with an Australian accent.
  8. 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:24) This scripture seems to me to be saying that the inhabitants of the worlds that have been and are created by God are begotten sons and daughters unto God. If this is a correct understanding of this verse, at first glance, the idea that there are many begotten sons and daughters of God does not seem to be consistent with the idea Jesus Christ is God’s only begotten Son. Can both of these ideas be correct, and if not, what might be the best way to reconcile them? What is it that is different in their identities and relationship with God, rather than in their roles, between God's many begotten sons and daughters on this and other worlds, and His only begotten Son?
  9. askandanswer

    Are we sure wickedness isn't happiness?

    I listened to this talk early last week. It seems as if it might be relevant to your question. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/michael-d-barnes/finding-strength-christ/
  10. Could I get some response to the idea that there can be benefits to viewing the consequences of death as a return to an improved normality? The idea that it is a return to normality comes from the idea that in our eternal existence, the post-mortal conditions in which we live will be much more like the pre-mortal conditions of our existence under which we lived for untold thousands of years than the conditions which govern our 100 years or so of mortal existence, and that therefore those pre and post mortal conditions can more accurately be described as our normal conditions of existence. The idea that the post mortality conditions will be an improvement on the normality comes from the belief that our post mortal existence will be improved and enriched by the knowledge and experiences we gain in mortality. The idea that there could be benefits in viewing the consequences of death as a return to an improved normality stems from the idea that there are some who consider that by failing to prevent deaths, or by actually bringing them about, as occasionally suggested by some stories on the Old Testament, God is doing something bad, or at the least, failing to be good. If death can be viewed as enabling a return to an improved normality, this particular criticism against God could be blunted, and this could be a benefit. This idea might also help to lessen the grief of those who mourn a death. So what is your response to this idea?
  11. askandanswer

    “Into the millennium”

    You mean to say the millennium hasn't yet started in your part of the world? You guys need to catch up. b
  12. askandanswer

    October has arrived

    Probably deliberately disabled until after Halloween.
  13. askandanswer

    Free will

    I think it is impossible for an external observer to make completely reliable conclusions about the motivations of a person, or to make definitive statements as to whether a person's actions are being driven by fear, wants, personal values, logic, knowledge, faith, or anything else. Given the impossibility of an external observer being able to make reliable conclusions about what is motivating a persons actions and choices, I think we need to rely on what the person themselves say - they are the ones most likely to be able to make accurate statements about what is motivating them. I think that in many instances, in answer to the question of "why are you doing that", there will be many occasions when the person will say something other than because I want to, and many occasions when they will say something like because I choose to. When considering why a person is be doing something, I think it is perfectly reasonable to give greater weight to the words of the doer of the action rather than those of the observer or the philosopher.
  14. askandanswer

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    I think it makes sense that a response should be proportional to the risk.
  15. askandanswer

    Trying to have spiritual experiences

    I'm confident that the Lord will give spiritual experiences in His time to those who are genuinely seeking to live righteous lives and build up His Kingdom. People seeking after spiritual experiences, even if they do so in all the right ways and for the right reasons, always need to keep in mind that no matter how well they are doing, it will always be the Lord who will decide if, when and how to grant a spiritual experience, and His timing and methods may differ from our perceived needs and expectations. Some people can probably accept and handle that difference, and for others, it might be damaging to their faith.