BackBlast
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BackBlast
-
-
11 minutes ago, Vort said:
This is simply false. Our own most sacred ceremonies portray God as laying out the plan for the temptation of our first parents, and then saying, "IF they yield [to that temptation]..." Not "when", but "if". Moses came down from the mount with a law that would have created a kingdom of priests; but that didn't happen, and the remnant shards of that law were ever after carried in the ark of the covenant to remind the people what they had lost. The early Saints were given a specific implementation of the law of consecration which was intended to be an eternal covenant -- yet we have not lived in a Church-sponsored "united order" for over a hundred years. Joseph Smith restored plural marriage, and no honest person can read the statements of the early Church leaders and still maintain that it was not believed to be an order that would endure forever; yet in 1890, it was formally done away with.
I'm not seeing this as proof contrary to my statements. He gives man his agency. Saying when instead of if accomplishes what exactly? To me it would seem to impact Adam's agency. Just because a man or people will fall short, does not mean that He should skip what is theirs by right of previous choices, even if they subsequently prove unworthy and it is taken away from them or a seemingly less than ideal path is chosen.
D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
It doesn't matter if He knows that the person will rise higher and higher and then finally betray all of creation and seek to destroy it all. That person will still receive all blessings for the laws that they are obedient to at that time. It's part of the law, and knowledge of the end doesn't change that.
11 minutes ago, Vort said:I do not know exactly what is meant by God's omniscience, but I am very willing to assume it means that God sees the future as a fait accompli. In this, I stand in direct opposition to people like Rob Osborn, who claim that God cannot actually know the future, only various probability assignments. But even though I take a traditional view of an all-knowing God, I reject the idea that God skates by on his omniscience and avoids the duplication and drudgery of, you know, actually planning for contingencies.
God is not a genie in a bottle who just blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence. He is a perfect and glorified Man. That's the bottom line.
I view it somewhat differently. He isn't skating by, by avoiding duplication. He has to do so much more homework up front, to insure the maximum progression of every one of his children following their individual and collective agency. That sounds like a lot of homework to me, even more than a best guess and a fall back plan or 10.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
Abel, Seth.
King Saul, King David.
etc...etc...etc...
You didn't understand my point. David wasn't His plan B. That was The Plan.
Your idea suggests that the Lord does not know the future and cannot prophecy, or only has limited capacity to see them fulfilled, and must have a plan for every contingency to accomplish His purpose. He doesn't need to plan for every contingency because He knows the path that will actually occur regardless of what the public plan A or B is. Sometimes we only know plan A, but He has no such limitation.
-
16 minutes ago, Traveler said:
To encourage those involved to consider the evidence that G-d provides – both scriptural and empirical – when forming opinions. Or at least admit that their opinions are pure speculation. I love to ask questions in an effort to try and see if I can come to the same or similar conclusion if I consider the same evidence someone else is using.
My speculation is so labeled, though I believe there to be some basis there. If you wish to dismiss it in word, do me the courtesy of being specific and citing your implied sources and not saying things like "no scriptural basis" when there are scriptures quoted by me in the thread. If you believe I am wrong, show me why. Nebulous hand wave dismissals I find disrespectful. And this is all you have provided.
-
10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
We know that the Lord always has backups of backups of backups (for example, Saul, and then David).
This isn't accurate. The Lord doesn't need backups of backups of backups. That's the advantage of being all knowing and having past, present, and future before you. He can provide the blessings that individuals are given according to their obedience and the law, and then He can also know when they will fall short or fail in a purpose and then know exactly what needs to be in place to continue to accomplish His purpose. He doesn't need Plan B, Plan C, or Plan D. He has, The Plan.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I am not aware of any scriptural or other divine revelation to support your speculations – in fact there is modern revelation (LDS) that contradicts your proposal. Also, there is no empirical evidence to support your suggestion. It is a personal preference of mine (or prejudice if you will) to reject speculations that have no divine reason (or purpose) nor empirical possibility.
What exactly did this have to do with my answer to your question? It seems like a general answer to the speculation. And if you don't like speculative threads, why do you participate in them?
-
15 minutes ago, Traveler said:
It is my personal thought that the account of creation in scripture is linked directly to the divine plan of salvation through symbolism and if anything can be found to the actual origin of our vast universe – it is a coincidence. If you believe that the scriptural creation account has any empirical bearing on things – please explain to me how it was that the fruit trees of earth were producing fruit before there was a sun shining in its heavens? (Days 3 & 4 of the scripture creation account).
There was light before the sun was made (day 1). With another source of light, fruit trees can create and produce fruit with or without a sun. This order, I believe, supports the plausibility of of sun-less worlds closer to the throne of God and I would consider this positive evidence of the general theorem, rather than negative.
-
21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:
What if the "becoming like God" takes place in mortality, by one who rejects God's council in favor of his/her own wisdom? Would that person's deciding of right and wrong be based, at least primarily, upon that notoriously subjective standard of individual conscience?
You could become a law unto yourself. This is not becoming like God. The statement is somewhat of an oxymoron.
God walks on the razor's edge of stable creation. Perfect in mercy and justice, which grants him the trust and love of creation. The only way to rule over beings with free will is to have their devotion and for them to grant unto you their voluntary obedience.
Someone who is a law unto himself and wishes the long term allegiance of beings with free-will, to grant unto him dominion, will find the balance difficult to achieve outside of God's system or one like unto it.
-
On 5/20/2017 at 1:00 AM, JohnsonJones said:
I am NOT a Trump supporter. I did NOT vote for Trump. I don't even like how Trump acts many times. However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump. If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been.
You can learn a lot about a man by who his enemies are.
The media can't really be balanced until they balance the thinking of whom they employ. They have spent the last several decades purging "wrong thinkers" and have created a mono-culture. Such an entity is fundamentally incapable of balance.
QuoteI put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site. It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
QuoteLook, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest. The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias. Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media. They are their own worst enemy. That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia. The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously.
Trump deserves some of the heat he has received, if for no other reason than he is sloppy with words and he doesn't fundamentally understand what he is up against in his opponents. Regardless, I still bless him for throwing a monkey wrench into the heart of government that appears to be giving me a few years of peace before the consumption decree brings the end of this nation.
-
I'm about 13 years removed from the Utah single scene. The girls I managed to get dates with, about 80-90% seemed to want to have fun, weren't ready to settle down or even "solo date" (many of these women were early to even late 20s).
Being a rather duty oriented sort, I was probably intimidating with a "I'm not here to have fun or mess around" feeling I probably oozed with my very presence. So maybe my sampling was poor, if they didn't *really* like me it was one date and done. Hanging out, or group dates always showed me in my worst light so I avoided them. I was not a social butterfly. So I struggled with finding dates at all. Only girl I ever kissed was my now wife.
But eventually I found the one, and have managed to make it a a good marriage after some struggle and trial. I do not envy what it must be like in current singles circles. Though I fully believe that the Lord will provide for the faithful, in His own time.
- NeuroTypical and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
An alternative view on the Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial kingdoms is that the celestial is the very center bright core. Then the immediate area surrounding the core is a Terrestial zone, where populated worlds live and the light received is directly from the core rather than a local sun and no local stars appear to be found. IE, they live in His presence. After that is the veil dust cloud. Then the remaining area are varying degrees of the Telestial kingdom. Some of which have distinct glory zones, but require local suns for light as they are removed from the throne of God.
-
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:
@backblast: thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it is an intriguing possibility. Some observations/questions:
1) In some ways I am not surprised that scripture would support this kind of view. Is this because this view is more "true" (as a 21st century Mormon might understand it) or is it because the worldviews of the authors of scripture had no concept of "island universe" like we do? Certainly ancient scripture (possible geocentric models) did not have a concept of "island universe". Even Joseph Smith in the 19th century probably did not have a solid understanding of a cosmos filled with "island universes" (Wikipedia indicates that the concept of "island universe" gets started in the 18th century but doesn't gain a solid footing until the 20th century). Is scriptural agreement with the idea of a galaxy as a "familial creation subdivision" due to this being "true", or because God tailored his explanation to the single universe worldviews of those he was giving revelation to.
There is something to that, but I also tend to believe that the words will remain true regardless of the conceptual notions of the people receiving the revelations. God does speak to the understanding of men.
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:2) The idea of galactic structure as a basis for "divisions" between us and God (and telestial from terrestrial from celestial) is intriguing. Certainly this applies nicely to a structured spiral galaxy like ours (and the one in your picture -- do you happen to know which galaxy that is? M74 was the closest match I looked at). What are the implications for an ellipsoidal galaxy or others that have much less structure? Different spiritual rules in those creations that do not lead to such spiritual division?
NGC-6814. I try to preserve the name of whatever image I grab to help identify it if desired.
I've looked at many. Ellipsoids tend to follow the same pattern IMHO. Though depending on how the photo was taken the Terrestial may be difficult to distinguish from the Telestial. When only using a narrow band of emissions it's more difficult. The core is always easy to distinguish. I find it easiest on a top down view with full visible light spectrum available. Some other commonalities are the dust cloud, "veil", around the core. And there is also one found at the outskirts beyond the Telestial sphere, "outter darkness" where one would be veiled from the light, or "glory" from your own galaxy.
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:3)
I'm not sure that this is true. We can easily see that the Andromeda galaxy is surrounded by other galaxies that are tied to it (M32, M110 for example). Further out, we talk about clusters of galaxies that seem bound together (our local group, or the Virgo cluster for example) by gravity. How do you see these clusters in this part of the model?
4) What are the implications for "interacting galaxies". The Whirlpool galaxy (M51) is interacting with its companion galaxy. There are a couple of galaxies that we have identified that are currently being swallowed up into our own Milky Way galaxy (such as the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroid galaxy. If each galaxy represents a separate familial creation, what does it suggest about these colliding galaxies?
This is highly speculative. There will be linkages for some, yes, as a new family forms I would think that there is a development process. Globular clusters to new infant galaxies - they seem to be built from the core outward. I think there are also those who choose to remain close neighbors. There is as much variance as individuality found in The Family. Like people here who choose different houses, neighborhoods, and communities.
-
On 4/26/2017 at 4:23 PM, Eowyn said:
I tend to think that anyone who actually had a holy experience (as in, walking with God or Jesus and learning a bunch of stuff about our lives before and after Earth) would realize how sacred that is and keep it to themselves. As in, not try and make money off it. And I tend to think that, as a rule, God wouldn't reveal Himself to someone who couldn't keep it to themselves (and especially someone who would go out and try to make money off it).
This represents current thinking in the Church, and for periods of time it may well represent the reality of our current society. However, if it were generally true or truth, we would have no writings in the scriptures about seeing the Son, touching the marks, hearing or seeing the Father. There clearly are things that are forbidden, but there is also a realm of holy experiences that are shareable as plainly evidenced by scriptural testimony. I think such stipulations on keeping things to ourselves represent our collective unbelief and as a protection for the individual who has seen against the wolves that might rend them.
I think as we progress to the second coming there will more and more individuals and families that experience Him, and who are commanded to share with certain parties, perhaps even in some public manner, that others may hear their testimonies and seek Him, that their unbelief might be lifted and also experience Him. When we have congregations of such people, He can freely walk among us. It is only such a people that can build the New Jerusalem. At some point, we have to turn that corner.
I used to hold a view similar to yours, about being cautions about book sellers, etc. Where money and recompense might be involved. One day when I was venturing forth such an opinion I had the spirit ask me. "So what is it you get paid to do?" (I am a back end dev for lds.org/scriptures and lds.org/music) Well... I'm paid to spread gospel works, the core content. That question was quite penetrating to me, it taught me to stop trying to judge people's motives in this manner. I would never be able to do this work as a volunteer, the compensation does provide for my family and do a good work that is more rewarding and productive in this world than most. It is enough to review and judge their works on their own merits alone rather than judge them on a shallow type or if money might be involved - that is their personal affair between them and the Lord. Further unbiased reflection will show that the church sells books, GAs sell books, etc...
-
On 4/24/2017 at 0:08 PM, Guest said:
I ask because I heard you have to be married but then I've been taught by an apostle in a one on one interview with Jeffrey R Holland that all time is one with the Lord and what is said about eternity now should resonate forever as long as you are worthy. I also ask because I'm pretty sure single prophets like Paul and Moroni and Jesus have had the 2nd comferter. So I'm not asking if it will happen im just asking if it's possible with the Lord.
The second comforter is something extended to individuals who have followed the gospel. They entered at the gate and walked the straight and narrow path, then they receive the promise. "Ye shall have eternal life". I like 2nd Nephi 31 as a good summary of this process. My understanding is that marriage is not required, it isn't mentioned in 2nd Nephi 31. That it can be done and had by individuals. It is an ultimate requirement for exaltation, but it isn't specified as to when it must happen.
For most people, eternal marriage should be sought and followed in this life if possible. It is the pattern of eternity, and you do not learn it here then you must learn it elsewhere.
I believe that every person comes here with a set of challenges that they must conquer or accomplish to attain this. This list may include a working marriage for some people. For others it may be as simple as, accept Christ, overcome drug addition, forgive your father. The Spirit leads you through this once you have accepted Christ and entered the gate.
There is an ordinance done occasionally in the church called the second anointing. This is a couple ordinance. In older days the Stake President could interview you and put forth your name for this ordinance. Today those recommend books are held above the stake level. Some people conflate this with the second comforter as it's purpose is to promise eternal life.
-
On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:
...the scope or extent of our Father's creation...
It's an interesting topic, I'll provide you with a theorem.
On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:1) One discussion talked about us "creating planets". Is our Father's/Christ's creation limited to the Earth/Solar system, and everything outside of that is beyond what He created?
No. I believe that is demonstratably false with scripture
On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:2) The scriptures say that God created the Sun, Moon, and stars and placed them in the firmament of heaven. With a couple of notable exceptions (I will come back to them), every star, cluster, nebula, object that we can see naked eye is within our own Milky Way galaxy/"island universe". Is God's creation limited to a single galaxy?
I believe that this is the more logical division. Scriptural support.
Abraham 3:3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
Kolob is declared to be one of the ...governing ones... It is at the foundation of an organization - and near to where the Father lives. It belongs to the same order as this world, and by the other information it's clear that it is another planet. If it is a foundation of an organization of worlds, the largest unit that fits is a Galaxy. Beyond that unit there is no clear governing order we can discern, at least that I understand. It is related to rotations, seasons - time, which seem to me to be direct governance - orbits around each other with what we call gravity. Galaxies do not seem to have distinct interactions that one could potentially declare as clear governance. They probably exist, but they are very indistinct and a poor fit for direct governance.
Thus I find it quite a reasonable idea that a Galaxy represents a familial creation subdivision - and the milky way represents the creation done under our Father.
Supporting evidence. The center of the galaxy is veiled from us. One form of a 'veil'. We are unable to number his worlds, which we cannot no matter what we build or how many computers we might dedicate to the task because we cannot see on the other side of the center. Our best estimates are generally little better than an order of magnitude ball-park style numbering. So, we indeed, cannot "count' creation. The sun, the moon, and the stars we can see all reside in this galaxy. While we can see other galaxies, we cannot discern individual bodies there so they should not be considered stars. Our sun is in the outer 3rd from the center, that may indicate that we are in the 3rd of 3 kingdoms - Telestial, that fits. When you look at pictures of galaxies, there tends to be a quite distinct core (Celestial kingdom), followed by two fairly distinct areas moving outward and often marked by composition and color (Terrestial/Telestial). This fits the order of creation as we understand it. Attached an illustrative example.
This does not constitute a proof, but a possibility to think on.
What is the scope of God's creation?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I am LDS, endowed. I quoted PGP previously. You are welcome to bring what evidence you may, or don't, it's completely up to you how much or how little participation you would like to provide. Just please don't hand wave completely unsupported positions as if it is actual participation or evidence of anything.
Moses 2:
3 And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.
5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.
I'm not sure how you can think of it as a symbolic divine light when it is separating day from night which means it at least shares a type with the light we have and know presently. The source of this light is clearly not our sun, and could certainly support trees.