Search the Community

Speaking of the “Atonement” as perplexing or even complex speaks to limits in our understanding. I would address your concerns with some thoughts. I will begin with the three laws from Sir Arthur C. Clark: 1 When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. (Note – his definition of elderly was, over 30) 2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Next let us discover where the term “Atonement” came from. When Tyndale translated the first English version of the Bible, he ran into some rather difficult translation problems. There were terms (words) in the ancient Biblical text that had no English translation or concept. So, he made up some new words for his translation. The word “Atonement” was one of those terms. His new terms were one of the primary reasons he was burned at the stake for blasphemy. I have pondered that as inspired as this term was – it is inadequate in representing the vast reaches of the atonement. Having pondered and studied Christ and the mission of the Messiah, I have come to the conclusion that following the last supper to the resurrection of Christ does not even begin to teach us of the atonement of Christ. To understand the atonement, I believe that we must begin with the addressing of the “only begotten Son of the Father” in the pre-existence. Jehovah was not just an individual – I believe it was a special calling from “the beginning”. That calling was of singular most importance when the Great Plan of Salvation (Plan of Happiness) was begun. I believe that the atonement began with the, “In the beginning” spoken of in Genesis – and that the atonement will not end or be completed until the conclusion of the resurrection and what is called, “The Final Judgement”. In short, everything we study in recorded revelation that comes from G-d testifies of the Messiah and the Atonement. Our gift of “Agency” come through the Christ, and I speculate that because agency comes through Him that he shares in the responsibility of the consequences that result from choices that are not pure light and truth. Because the Messiah granted our agency, He is the only possibility able to “redeem” or pay for our sins and transgressions. I believe there is more to this than just physical suffering and anguish and includes being spiritually striped of divine position and title – sacrificing all His personal achievements. He does this only for our benefit and redemption. It seems to me that in this thread and post we will only highlight a few “threads” in the great tapestry of what is called “The Atonement”. I believe that there are two other elements that must be completed. One comes from G-d our Father in Heaven – through who the Messiah is called, sustained and supported in His call – that G-d the Father will raise up the Christ with power to resurrect all mankind. The second comes from all the soles of mankind that will complete every covenant made in the pre-existence and bend every knee and bow every head and declare that Jesus is the Christ before the “Atonement” is completed. And for the record – my understanding of the Atonement is very little and there is much for me to learn to get beyond where currently, I am. The Traveler

Well, apparently your OCD isn't sufficiently advanced...

I found this book Biocosm at the library, the author makes a pretty dang interesting scientific hypothesis which basically mirrors our doctrine of our potential to become gods and create new universes in an infinitely large multiverse. To me this is yet another testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel; the quote is the implication of his theory. BIOCOSM-The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe. What is humankind’s place in the universe? That fundamental question underlies both scientific inquiry and millennia of religious thought. The traditional answer of science is that life and human intelligence are of no cosmic consequence but merely the random outcome of the interplay of natural forces. Mainstream religions answer the same question in many different ways but most share the view that the mind of the Creator of the universe is ultimately inaccessible to mortal minds. BIOCOSM challenges both viewpoints and suggests that the emergence of life and mind is a cosmic imperative encoded in the basic laws of nature and, further, that highly evolved intelligence will eventually play the key role in reproducing the cosmos. The author of Biocosm cited this article and from a gospel point of view it states that heavenly Father would by definition be an extraterrestrial intelligence which i thought was pretty interesting. Michael Shermer Shermer’s Last Law

I feel this is an outgrowth of some thoughts I have been having regarding the King Follet discourse. I know this isn't standard works level cannon but for the sake of discussion let's assume it is. God was once a man, now enthroned in yonder heaven. True, he is perfect and just and glorified, but he is still a being bound by laws that we don't know where the came from (or perhaps are simply self existing). This version of God doesn't create ex nihilo and reminds me of the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to one of lesser understanding. With that in mind, one could simply treat this God as a sufficiently progressed man. Which is some ways removes the mystery and majesty of the divine. Now let's go to the other hand. God is a self existing being who created our universe from nothing. He created the laws of our universe and is not bound by them. This leaves more questions about his reasoning as the idea of an omnipotent being creating feeling creatures that will suffer if they don't follow him by faith alone, that has its own set of problems. This second being is more mysterious and divine in someways in my mind. But the question is, which God (if either) is God? I think the idea I have is that, the LDS idea of God sometimes makes me feel like we lessen him by putting him on our level. That he simply holds all knowledge and that is how he does everything. What do you all think?

As a student of history I recently visited the ancient ruins of the city Knossos on the island of Crete. There, I personally saw the rather sophisticated labyrinth that according to pre-historic legend, was guarded by the half man half bull creature called the Minotaur. The stories of human events are divided into two categories: one being historic and second being pre-historic. The style of writing and communicating changed so abruptly with the writings of Homer that his works have become to boundaries of what we classically call historic and pre-historic. The dates of the events covered in the Old Testament all took place during the time known as pre-historic. The style of this era was to maintain important literature in poetic form in order to preserve important concepts. The poetic forms utilized principles of music in that the chants contained rhythm that preserved the message in oral traditions rather than written texts. Thus the references in pre-historic literature are symbolic to maintain the poetic format rather than what we call literal according to historical accounts. In our modern era many students have become so accustomed to our literal communications that ancient pre-historic poetic symbolism is misunderstood or should I say untranslatable. Nephi talked about this problem when referencing Isaiah – indicating that without a understanding of the culture of the Jews the symbolism of Isaiah was difficult to impossible to understand – but with a symbolic understanding of Jewish culture Isaiah was simple. I would also point to the historical works of Josephus as one that spoke of the symbolism of the pre-historic references of the Old Testament. One of the account of Josephus deals with the ancient Biblical Tower of Babel. Josephus wrote that there was an effort to alter the meaning of ancient symbolism and one tradition he said was being altered was the Tower of Babel. He explicitly explained that one of the principles that was being changed was the concept that the Tower was an effort of man to reach heaven. I specifically bring up this notion because many that maintain the Old Testament as scripture believe this false notion as a literal truth of the Bible. Rather than tell what Josephus claimed was the actual purpose of the Tower of Babel – I will leave that as an exercise for the reader and thus avoid a trivial argument with certain religious elements. Quoting Arthur C. Clark the British science fiction writer of 2001: A Space Odyssey. In essence, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural.” I believe that we can safely assume that the technology of G-d is sufficiently advanced from ours. However, I do personally believe in magic and that magic can be exercised through the personal development of the 3 great pillars of magic. Which are. 1. Music 2. Mathematics and 3. Love (pure love of Christ). The Traveler

The science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke observed that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (or words to that effect). But it's NOT magic. That is the salient point. We can build an airplane that will "magically" fly through the air, but we can't chant an incantation that allows us to fly. That we don't understand a thing doesn't mean the thing is magic—but by the same token, that we don't understand the operations of the universe does not therefore mean that any "operation" we can dream up, no matter how meaningless or self-contradictory, is possible. The Priesthood is not magic. It works according to law. People need to understand this. I have often seen Latter-day Saints exhibit an almost superstitious view of the Priesthood and its ordinances. We would do better to abandon this way of thinking and take a somewhat more (dare I say it?) scientific view of such things.

Here's a few threads for you to look through: https://thirdhour.org/forums/search/?&q="sufficiently advanced"&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

@zil I have a hard time with any universe other than the one we live in – So I like to adapt things I know and understand from my own universe. First – the most common denominator of all exceptionally talented individuals – is that they have a mentor. I like the character development of King Arthur being tutored and mentored by Merlin (great expert). A second idea concerns magic. I believe knowledge is the great ark of magic and that three great pillars of magic. The masters of knowledge control the pillars of magic to become the masters of magic. Kind of like any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from magic. The three great pillars of magic are – 1. Music - the power to create, shape and change moods. 2. Mathematics – the power of logic to know, understand, predict and change the future and the secret of how all things are integrated. 3. Love – the power to change one’s view of others and create loyal trusted friends and a undefeatable team. Now if you can create a character that connects with readers (which I cannot) – I see a number of possibilities. 1. A character forced into action before their time. 2. A character that thinks they are ready when they are not. 3. A character that does not understand their mentor and attempts to escape their destiny (I think this character is way overused in fantasy). 4. A character that has been a most attentive student but has always been just short of what they should be – but now must do or die. 5. A character that is well prepared and fearlessly faces what seem to be insurmountable odds (the David and Goliath) character. Good luck The Traveler

Well, no, that's not accurate: He did use science, but it's science we don't understand, and may never understand until He explains it to us. I think it was in Arthur Clark's 2001, a Space Odyssey, that we find a truth all should recognize: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Jesus' use of advanced science and technologies looks, to us, like magic, but it is only the application of properties of His universe that we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand: to us, it is "magic". Lehi

There are many things to consider about observation. Recently I was at an intersection waiting for a light to change. As the light changed an accident occurred in the intersection. There were 3 additional individuals sitting with me in the car and as each expressed what was their observation, there was wild variations from when the light changed to even the initial directions the cars involved in the accident were traveling. I tended to believe my own observations were the most accurate because I was driving and thus paying more attention. In addition, I recalculated in my mind the forces involved to validate where the cars ended up. I was surprised that as I explained my validations that some in my car still held to their version of things – even though their opinions contradicted the positions of the cars at the end of the accident. One individual held to their opinion despite the “fact” that there was no damage to either car where they thought they initially collided. I believe rivals sitting at sporting events will “observe” differently. Bias plays an important role. Often the expression – keeping an open mind is very important. I believe this notion is even mentioned in scripture and is considered as being teachable. The question is – How teachable are we? The theory of evolution is the theory of change and is the principle of documentation of observable changes and then an attempt to explain the causes of the changes. But if readers would allow (have an open mind) may I propose a thought about evolution and the theory of evolution? In essence, the theory of evolution claims that all the changes in creatures of this planet can be explained by principles and laws of known and observable things that take place around us day by day. Some in the scientific community have suggested that we do not need a supernatural G-d creating the universe and life. All the things we observe happening can be explained by natural things that go on around us every moment of every day. Nothing extraordinary or “unnatural” needs to occur to explain creation and life. Can someone explain why this should upset anyone that believes in G-d? Why would G-d change his methods and ways of creating us (current man) from the ways and methods he used to create Adam and Eve? Where is there even a hint of such radical changes in G-d’s methods in any revelations – ancient or modern? Does something have to be unexplainable and fantastic (supernatural) to be miraculous and from G-d? I submit that even if there is what some think is an example – that it is not an actual doctrine every taught by G-d. The author of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear or seem supernatural. Two principles I believe to be true: #1. The more truth we learn the better we will understand G-d. #2. There is no truth nor pursuit of truth that any believer in G-d need fear or think contradicts G-d, his purposes, intents or accomplishments. The Traveler

I think the disconnect between the two sides of the argument rests on how, exactly, the process of determining an ID works. Most of the literature I've read on ID relies on pointing to observed phenomena, such as speciation and the presence of life, and finding ways in which known scientific principles cannot explain them. For example, the random chance of spontaneous biogenesis is so statistically unlikely as to be impossible, even in the known size and age of the Universe. The reaction then is to say that it MUST have been an Intelligent Designer because it cannot be explained any other way. The problem is that it doesn't conclusively prove ID because without knowing the actual process, it's impossible to conclusively demonstrate that whatever the process was, it MUST be ID. The true smoking gun for Intelligent Design must be something that we either know came about by an Intelligence or we must be able to conclusively show that we known enough about natural phenomena to properly rule them out leaving inly ID as a possible explanation. A fictional example of this appears in the novel Contact. (No, not the movie, the novel.) SPOILER ALERT The scientists who ride the space capsule and meet the aliens who built it are told that the alien civilization had calculated pi out to so many digits that they did eventually find a pattern of digits whose characteristics conclusively prove that an Intelligent Designer must have created the Universe and placed those values in pi as a sort of signature, so that only a race sufficiently advanced in mathematics and computational ability could find it. This is the sort of smoking gun ID proponents want, and Evolution proponents deny exists. For me personally, I'm skeptical of Evolution Theory not because of my religion or any literal interpretation of Genesis. My skepticism comes from dogmatic behavior in part of the scientific community where Evolution Theory is concerned, and problems with the theory itself that I do not feel are being addressed. (Like with the example I showed earlier with my friend, and with the peer-review process.)

Because the scriptures often speak in metaphors and many readers try to understand literally, there have been many mistakes make in understanding scripture. In conjunction with this thought is a quote from Author Clark – that said in essence – any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or the supernatural). It seems to me that one of the great divisions between religion and science – is that science tries to see through the lens or empirical understanding of reality and religion often tries to define the working of G-d as supernatural – such that if there is an explanation for a miracle – then it is not an actual miracle. It is opposite for me – that there is an explanation confirms for me not only the reality of the miracle but the reality of G-d that brought it to pass. According to scripture there was a new star in the heavens that appeared as a sign of the birth of the Messiah. But the new star did not last very long – certainly not near as long as we currently know and observe stars. I would submit that the star given as the sign of the Messiah’s birth was very likely a supernova about 600 light years from our earth. Indeed such a supernova would be observable even during the day light time on earth and rival our sun in brightness. But at this approximate 600 lightyear distance the magnetic field of the earth would shield the life of earth from the deadly radiation and power of the super nova. In addition the energy of the supernova would be sufficient to cause the earth’s ozone to fluoresce like a single giant fluorescent light tube. This would create a must unusual Celestial light source that would shine on earth without a seeming source and without shadows. Mathew Chapter 24 talks about the “sign” of the coming of Christ in the last days. It says that the sky will go dark and stars will fall from the heavens. We are also told that there will be great destruction of all life – water will boil and rocks will melt. That the saints will be lifted up to meat Jesus in order to avoid being destroyed with the wicked that will burn with a great fire. This sounds a lot like another supernova but one that is closer or within 400 light years of earth and will wreak havoc on our solar system (even changing orbits) and our planet earth. The Traveler

Maybe I'm too much a rationalist/positivist, but I disbelieve in "magic". However, I do believe Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I extend the idea of "technology" to cover the working of divine beings and powers, and in general the realm of knowledge not open to us. So maybe that's a distinction without a difference. In answer to the OP, I think John the Baptist was very clearly talking about the doing of divine ordinances and such. These things cannot be done without explicit divine authorization. I don't think it has anything to do with supposed "miracles", including the deceptions practiced in Pharaoh's court.

There are, undoubtedly, many Saints who believe that Mary's pregnancy was as "normal" as any other. It is not doctrine (as in taught by the Church), but it is a possibility, since there is no express doctrine, either, that it was not. Even if it were a "normal" conjugation, it would still be miraculous, since, as the Bible says, the Holy Ghost had to overshadow her to allow her to receive His presence: your distinction without merit. The definition of miracle, at least among us Saints, is the application of laws which we do not understand, or, as we read in 2001, a Space Odyssey, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a miracle (he used "magic"). So, let's say that Mary pregnancy was something like in vitro fertilization. No one in the i would have been able to say it was "just science", it, to them, would have been miraculous. I use lower case Roman numerals to indicate centuries before Christ. Upper case is for centuries after His advent. Lehi

I have to take issue with the thread title-quote. It's not entirely accurate unless we limit the definition of God to "more powerful than me". Let's compare myself with George Washington. I can fly across the country, carry my voice around the world, project my image around as well. George Washington, if he witnesses all this, would be justified in acknowledging me as more powerful. But he would be greatly amiss if he worshiped me. He can certainly fear me for my abilities, but if I'm a total jerk I hope he doesn't think of me as God. By these standards, the statement can also read "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from Satan". I should also point out that extraterrestrial is superfluous. Eric Clapton is sufficiently musically advanced, does he deserve worship? (actually, this is a bad example. I'm pretty sure that Clapton concert I attended transitioned to a praise and worship service. In fact, before he ever hit the stage people used to "applaud"; once he hit the scene they needed a new word to describe audience reaction, so they named it after him - "clapping") God's other attributes (the Moral ones that SeminarySnoozer calls out) also enter into the equation of what it means to be God.

Although there have been statements by individuals stating the Earth's age, the official position of the Church with regard to the age of the Earth or on evolution for that matter, is that we have no official position. The Scriptures tell us that God created the heavens and the Earth. They do not say how he did it except in very broad and figurative language. There are discrepancies between statements by general authorities throughout Church history. And there are dicrepancies between the creation story in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham. And even from those, we are told through other revelations that there is more to the story. Elder Boyd K. Packer came to BYU to give a devotional address. He criticized many in the Biology Department for teaching that evolution really occurred. It is obviously a doctrine of the devil and we know better was the flavor of his speech. (I'm hyperboliing. He was actually very articulate and polite.) Several professors spoke up and contacted various parties in the Church hierarchy. Elder Packer was SENT back to BYU for an otherwise unscheduled address. He corrected himself and said that the position of the Church with regard to evolution is still open for debate. But he warned that those who get into the study of such things must be sure that their testimonies are in order. The problem with determining religious truth with scientific basis is that there is SO MUCH that we do not have the scientific knowledge to explain. And if we can't reconcile it, do we depend on faith and religious knowledge or do we depend on scientific knowledge? If I'm Captain Picard and I'm transported back to the days of Babel, could I possibly explain how a tractor beam or transporter works in a technical way? It would be impossible. So the best way to explain it is that I "have a special power". Isaac Asimov: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Are we so bold or PRIDEFUL that we believe we are at a level of technological understanding to understand how God does EVERYthing? Yes, we understand some things that we did not know 6000 years ago. But we certainly won't understand some things that are a billion years in our future. Hence, wo unto the learned for when they are learned they think they are wise. But to be learned is good if one hearkens unto the Spirit of God. There is no conflict between LDS doctrine and true science. Any perceived conflict comes from incorrect conclusions or simply incomplete information. We must always accept that we only know the 1000th part of what we need to know scientifically on how the Power of God works.

I think you might misunderstand what a 3D printer is. A 3D printer takes a generic polymer and turns it in to a shape. That's it. A gun is just a generic shape with a tube and a lever at its base. You could not use it to print out a bomb because it isn't printing with gunpowder or weapons grade plutonium. You could use it to make a mortar, which is just a shallower tube that points upwards. It can print a gun, but it can't print bullets. It can print a car(When sufficiently advanced) but it can't print gasoline. As an aside, someone could go on the internet right now and learn how to turn a metal block into a .44 caliber gun for a whole lot less than 4K.

I guess it wouldn't blow my theology, but it would make me rethink my rationality. I don't see how, in the entire universe and the wonder of creation in all of its forms, that we could possibly be alone. For Star Trek NG fans - Could god be Q? I think not, since Q evidenced malevolence, but if there was a beneficent Q being, I'd be willing to think about whether a "sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God."

N00BZ! the correct answers are: Yes, if you fail to dispose of the original first. If the original is dead, you're good to go. Only if she has a beard, or a robotic arm that shoots lasers or something. If alternate reality chick is just the evil version of your good chick, it's not cheating, because both people currently exist in her already - it's just about choice. No. But if the love child of that relationship turns out to grow up to be your mom or dad, you have bigger things to worry about than cheating. (Trust me - stuff like this happens all the time with time travel.) Assuming the robot is sufficiently advanced, same answer as #1. It takes more than memories though - you have to capture the entire soul.Hope this helps. All my answers are right, everyone else's are wrong. (Except for the serious answers - those probably have mine beat.) LM

Thanks for the link- it was interesting. I'm not a physicist- i'm a chemist and biologist. I honestly don't like being talked to like a Luddite either- not everyone can be expected to keep up with the latest fads in cosmology. I don't need a lecture on the scientific method either. Also, I think you're operating under some false assumptions though- who here fears science? I know I don't- nor does the church. I find the elegant complexities of biological systems to be the very signature of God. Regarding the actual creation- Have you ever read this quote by Arthur C. Clarke- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" So in a sense, given our current understanding of creation, it WAS magic. We have some ideas about how it may have happened, but honestly, some of the ideas put forth about what actually caused the big bang are pretty nuts.

Yes, that is our understanding. But as FT said, it's not doctrinal. No matter *how* many GA's discussed it in General conference. Yes. There is an order in Heaven where all intelligence 'fits' in. Sufficiently advanced intelligences obtain the title of 'god'. The official teaching is hard to pin down, because if it is not supported in scripture, then it's not doctrine. So President Snow's couplet "As man is now, God once was; As God is now, Man may yet become." Is official, but not strictly doctrine. IOW, it's true but not necessarily taught (since we can't 'prove' the "God once was" part via the scriptures. HiJolly