Science vs. Faith

[mikbone]

I picked up a new habit of listening to science podcasts during my daily jogs and wanted to comment / get feedback on a topic that I find interesting.

One particular podcast had Janeane Garofalo (an actor with ultra-liberal political views) wherein she basically stated that any people that believe in God are mentally unstable. She was particularity slanderous of Tea Party members...

The concept that people make their decisions based upon their faith, was a concept that she could not understand. She kept stating that she required evidence to make any decision.

Well, personally I find her absolutely uninformed, uneducated and shortsighted.

During another jog-podcast I was learning about energy, matter, dark matter and dark energy. And I learned something quite interesting.

HubbleSite - Dark Energy - What Is Dark Energy?

According to the current model accepted by physicist our universe is composed of 2 different substances matter and energy. Einstein was the first to recognize that matter and energy are one in the same via the equation E=MC^2. But according to recent study our universe is a bit more complicated than we originally assumed.

All of the material that we can physically see and study which scientist define as visible matter (stars, planets, space, light, gravity, atoms, etc...) only add up to 4% of the material that we think compose the Universe as we know it. Dark matter is a currently undetermined substance which is thought to cause galaxies to rotate in their current fashion and can be inferred by gravitational lensing, (it is quite complicated) anyway this dark matter is thought to compose another 22% of the matter / energy of our universe. Dark energy is even less understood, it is hypothesized that Dark energy is the stuff that is causing our universe (space itself) to expand. This dark energy is thought to compose the remaining 74% of the matter / energy of our universe.

Thus according to physics (our most basic science) we can currently only study / experiment with 4% of the cosmos. So 96% of the matter / energy of the universe is TOTALLY UNKNOWN. I find it absolutely infuriating that these pseudo intellectuals condemn people of faith for basing our judgments on something that cannot be experimented upon using the scientific method.

Joseph Smith (who died 35 years before Einstein was born) made the following statements:

Speaking of eternal duration of matter he said. There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter but is more fine or pure and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cant see it but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (Joseph Smith Jr. Sermons delivered at Ramus, Ill. May 17, 1843, Source: William Clayton diary)

Now I ask all the learned men who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation say, that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing, and the reason is they are unlearned; they account it blasphemy to contradict the idea, they will call you a fool.--- I know more than all the world put together and the Holy Ghost within me comprehends more than all the world, and I will associate with it. The word create came from the word baurau; it does not mean so; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos; chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element, are principles that can never be destroyed. They may be organized and re-organized; but not destroyed. (Joseph Smith Jr., General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Sunday Afternoon April 7, 1844 as recorded in the Times and Seasons Minutes)

I am also disheartened when members of the Church stumble upon 'higher learning' and lose their testimonies.

As a M.D. I occasionally think of myself as a scientist. And I'll tell you what I know. Although many will try to convince you that we are living in a time of enlightenment and of vast increase in scientific knowledge. We know next to nothing. We continually make mistakes. We have a long way to go.

Moses statement still holds true, “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” Moses 1:10

Edited March 4, 2012 by mikbone

[Spartan117]

Very well done post. It reminds me of an article that was posted on FAIR titled "Joseph Smith and Modern Cosmology" and it addresses some of the same points you bring up, including dark energy. I think you'll relate to it quite a bit.

Joseph Smith and Modern Cosmology

The subject of my talk today is Joseph Smith and Modern Cosmology. The goal is to look at some of the teachings of Joseph Smith that have cosmic implications and to try to understand these and see what they mean in light of modern cosmology.

The author opens up with a story from when he worked at NASA.

One of the things that I did when I was at NASA Headquarters was to serve as the NASA representative to a group that NASA and NSF and the Department of Energy had put together called the Dark Energy Task Force. Their goal was to discuss this problem and advise the agencies what the best way was to try to figure out the problem of dark energy.I went to the first meeting, and there were a lot of people there that I didn’t know and a few people that I did. At the first coffee break, I went out and got something and came back and sat back down at the table and I noticed that there was this little knot of people sitting and talking at one end of the table. One of them was holding forth on Mormonism.It turns out that, just the weekend before, Time Magazine had come out with one of the irregular articles explaining Mormonism to the world. And so he was explaining about the church and about how silly some of the Mormon doctrines were. I just got to the point where I was thinking I should get up and go over there and say something, when they called a meeting to order again. One of the guys who had been in the group, a guy I knew, came over and sat down next to me, and he leaned over and said, “You’re a Mormon, aren’t you?” And I said, “Yes I am. And I’ve got to tell you I think it’s ironic for any member of the Dark Energy Task Force to be ridiculing anyone else’s beliefs.” They say you should start a talk by stating your main points, and so here’s one of my main points. This is no time for anyone to be criticizing anyone’s beliefs based on what cosmologists know.

So according to Miss Garofalo, the Medical Doctor and the Astrophysicist who find it appropriate to be humble in light of all we don't know are mentally unstable. You didn't do your residency in Psychiatry by any chance, did you?

[mikbone]

Orthopaedics.

Thanks for the link. Some of that was over my head... Especially the math. It's great that we have members of the church in all areas of study. We need more men like Widtsoe. But yeah Joseph Smith was all over it.

I was wondering if spooky action at a distance (entanglement) could have applications for instantaneous communications over vast distances...

Edited March 4, 2012 by mikbone

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I was wondering if spooky action at a distance (entanglement) could have applications for instantaneous communications over vast distances...

Saw an article that involves that (and an other interesting issue: can we detect spooky action with our eyes / mind). But it appears in a bastion of science, so I don't know if anyone here should read it.

[HEthePrimate]

Meh. I think the argument about science and religion is overblown. My father is a scientist, and he's a strong LDS believer. Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" makes sense to me, wherein he asserts that science and religion serve different purposes and answer different questions, and don't have to be viewed as in conflict with each other.

[annewandering]

Science and religion are the same search for truth. Just different aspects of truth. If its true it doesn't matter if you call it science or if you call it religion.

[rameumptom]

While I'm not a fan of Janeane Garafalo, she does have a point. Much of Christianity today attempts to refute scientific evidence. They insist in a 6 day creation; dinosaurs that dwelt with men; 6000 year old earth; etc.

Should we always go with the Church's interpretation of things, we would still think the earth was the center of the universe, with all planets and stars revolving around it.

Sometimes it is religion that has to give to new evidence. When it does not, it gives credence to the concept that religion has nothing to do with evidence, and so must entirely be made up.

As mikbone quotes JS regarding matter (and correctly so), I could add that JS' nephew Joseph F Smith, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (JSF's son and grandson-in-law) were insistent on a 6000 year old earth, no dinosaurs, no evolution. He also dismissed the idea of man ever going to the moon.

So, while Joseph Smith may have been enlightened, it seems that when it comes to science, our own church went through a Dark Ages.

[Traveler]

Because we live in an era of restoration there is a lot going on concerning man’s understanding of things. However, I believe we should be careful that we not jump to too many conclusions. The processes of science are moving forward in what appears to be uncharted territories. It has been 22 years since the Hubble telescope was first place into space. One of the early discoveries was that a small dim light hardly visible to the naked eye was not some distant star or even a galaxy but what has been given the label of a “supercluster”. It is important to note that this newly discovered supercluster is bigger than the known universe was believed to be less than just 100 years ago.

But to the great surprise of scientists this newly discovered supercluster was moving the wrong direction in an otherwise expanding universe. Something was moving a very large region of matter the wrong direction - this mysterious stuff was first called “The Great Attractor”. We have given this stuff a new name - it is now called dark matter and dark energy. Do not let the term “dark” mislead you. It is more of a label than a description. This stuff does not emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation (the scientific term for light). This is most troubling because since Einstein’s famous equation (E=MC^2) all matter and energy was believed to possess properties of light.

Many a religionist, frustrated by scientific discoveries over the last half century that seem to be squeezing G-d out of meaningful existence have rejoiced at this clumsy attainment and unexplained new information. Religionists have for a few hundred years resisted scientific advancements that shattered traditional concepts of G-d and creation. Some well meaning and somewhat ignorant religionists have quickly jumped to the conclusion that science is stumbling over its own intelligence and proven science is an ineffective means to understanding the universe and creation. BIG MISTAKE!

What is happening is that science is opening up a vast array of knowledge that is changing how we view our universe and it origins. The idea of creation from nothing is taking a huge set back and many of the views of the divine are going to be impacted. This means that LDS concepts will or should also evolve as well. The idea that many important “things” pertaining to the eternal kingdom of G-d and the salvation of man are yet to be revealed - which I believe means that our understanding of such basic things to our religion will and must change. Not that Joseph Smith or religious reformers and thinkers were wrong but that doors are being opened by G-d to the understanding and knowledge of things not previously known at all.

I believe we can either rejoice, pursuing new understanding or we can dig in our heals - shut our ears and close our eyes and die in ignorance holding onto our flawed and incomplete concepts of science and religion of the past that did not have access to what we have today.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

As mikbone quotes JS regarding matter (and correctly so), I could add that JS' nephew Joseph F Smith, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (JSF's son and grandson-in-law) were insistent on a 6000 year old earth, no dinosaurs, no evolution. He also dismissed the idea of man ever going to the moon.

So, while Joseph Smith may have been enlightened, it seems that when it comes to science, our own church went through a Dark Ages.

Yep. I heard it all during the 70's (and part of the 80's) and it fit with what my parents and other relatives said.

But then I found out the real science behind it all, and I had to change my view, in opposition to my family and APPARENTLY, in opposition to my religion. That was painful, but valuable. Follow the truth, always.

HiJolly

[mikbone]

Meh. I think the argument about science and religion is overblown. My father is a scientist, and he's a strong LDS believer. Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" makes sense to me, wherein he asserts that science and religion serve different purposes and answer different questions, and don't have to be viewed as in conflict with each other.

I agree. My problem is with 'scientist' who refuse to even consider the position of religion because religion cannot be tested via the scientific method. When in reality the most basic of science (physics) essentially is invoking faith in the concepts of dark energy and dark matter.

It is a hypocrytical stance.

It is reassuring to see scientist like John Widtsoe, your father, etc...

[mikbone]

Science and religion are the same search for truth. Just different aspects of truth. If its true it doesn't matter if you call it science or if you call it religion.

Perhaps, but one will make you a buck, while the other will get you entrance into heaven... If you follow the truth that you find.

[mikbone]

As mikbone quotes JS regarding matter (and correctly so), I could add that JS' nephew Joseph F Smith, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (JSF's son and grandson-in-law) were insistent on a 6000 year old earth, no dinosaurs, no evolution. He also dismissed the idea of man ever going to the moon.

So, while Joseph Smith may have been enlightened, it seems that when it comes to science, our own church went through a Dark Ages.

I agree. I wish that some of the latter day prophets had not made 'off the cuff' comments on issues for which they had not received revelation.

But, in my opinion, Joseph Smith Jr. (Moses, Abraham, Brother of Jared, etc) were give visions of the universe and basic science.

"The only way to obtain truth and wisdom, is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer and obtain divine teaching." Joseph Smith Jr. Sermon delivered at General Conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Ill. on October 3, 1841.

[mrmarklin]

While I'm not a fan of Janeane Garafalo, she does have a point. Much of Christianity today attempts to refute scientific evidence. They insist in a 6 day creation; dinosaurs that dwelt with men; 6000 year old earth; etc.

Should we always go with the Church's interpretation of things, we would still think the earth was the center of the universe, with all planets and stars revolving around it.

Sometimes it is religion that has to give to new evidence. When it does not, it gives credence to the concept that religion has nothing to do with evidence, and so must entirely be made up.

As mikbone quotes JS regarding matter (and correctly so), I could add that JS' nephew Joseph F Smith, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (JSF's son and grandson-in-law) were insistent on a 6000 year old earth, no dinosaurs, no evolution. He also dismissed the idea of man ever going to the moon.

So, while Joseph Smith may have been enlightened, it seems that when it comes to science, our own church went through a Dark Ages.

Note however that none of the above "dark ages" opinions ever became Church doctrine even though JFS' were presumably in a position to make it so.

Ultimately, there is no conflict between our doctrine and science.

As someone observed, some religions seem to have their heads in the sand, and won't let their opinions be changed by the facts.

[mikbone]

What is happening is that science is opening up a vast array of knowledge that is changing how we view our universe and it origins. The idea of creation from nothing is taking a huge set back and many of the views of the divine are going to be impacted. This means that LDS concepts will or should also evolve as well. The idea that many important “things” pertaining to the eternal kingdom of G-d and the salvation of man are yet to be revealed - which I believe means that our understanding of such basic things to our religion will and must change. Not that Joseph Smith or religious reformers and thinkers were wrong but that doors are being opened by G-d to the understanding and knowledge of things not previously known at all.

I believe we can either rejoice, pursuing new understanding or we can dig in our heals - shut our ears and close our eyes and die in ignorance holding onto our flawed and incomplete concepts of science and religion of the past that did not have access to what we have today.

The Traveler

I am not familiar with any Joseph Smith revelations or teachings that are contrary to well accepted scientific theories. The prophet was amazingly insightful.

[Traveler]

I agree. My problem is with 'scientist' who refuse to even consider the position of religion because religion cannot be tested via the scientific method. When in reality the most basic of science (physics) essentially is invoking faith in the concepts of dark energy and dark matter.

It is a hypocrytical stance.

It is reassuring to see scientist like John Widtsoe, your father, etc...

In general I find the scientific community much more open to new ideas and concepts than the religious community. And in addition I have yet to find any religious individual that is willing to even try to explain the order of creation for days 3 and 4 as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. If a 3rd grader wrote that same premise for a class room science paper - I think many even Christians would say the concept fails. It is very poor thinking and science to purport that the earth existed with grass and trees before the sun even existed.

I would also point out that in revelation from G-d, Joseph Smith was counseled not to pursue other efforts beyond restoration. That in so doing he would not have divine support - the mission of Joseph was not to advance scientific thought - but rather to correct certain religious thoughts and open the door for the enlightenment - religious and scientific that we are now experiencing.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

In general I find the scientific community much more open to new ideas and concepts than the religious community. And in addition I have yet to find any religious individual that is willing to even try to explain the order of creation for days 3 and 4 as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. If a 3rd grader wrote that same premise for a class room science paper - I think many even Christians would say the concept fails. It is very poor thinking and science to purport that the earth existed with grass and trees before the sun even existed.

If you are an endowed member, you may want to go back to a temple session and pay attention to the creation narrative.

Also very interesting concerning science / LDS religion and the creation.

"Earth Will Go Back to God

This earth will be rolled back in to the presence of God and crowned with Celestial Glory." (Joseph Smith Jr., Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841, as recorded in the Clayton Record.)

Compare to 2 Nephi 23:10 -13

“When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. … But when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system. … This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth.” Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, 17:143.

All three of these passages describe the Earth traveling from the presence of God (Presumably near Kolob) after its creation and settling into its current orbit around our sun. And that it will do the same trip in reverse after the millennium. Personally I think that Brigham Young heard Joseph Smith talking about this transit and embellished the story stating that it occurred after the fall when in all likely hood it occurred prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.

This concept is pretty amazing. If it is true. It would explain the first few days of creation.

Day 1 - The planet Earth is created near Kolob. Its rotation is started producing Day and Night.

Day 2 - The Earth's Atmosphere is created.

Day 3 - The Earth is moved from Kolob's presence and is placed into our current solar system. After Earth enters into an orbit around our sun, it is impacted by Theia. Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From this event The Sun, Moon, and Stars are created...

Edited March 6, 2012 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

All three of these passages describe the Earth traveling from the presence of God (Presumably near Kolob) after its creation and settling into its current orbit around our sun. And that it will do the same trip in reverse after the millennium. Personally I think that Brigham Young heard Joseph Smith talking about this transit and embellished the story stating that it occurred after the fall when in all likely hood it occurred prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.

This concept is pretty amazing. If it is true. It would explain the first few days of creation.

Day 1 - The planet Earth is created near Kolob. Its rotation is started producing Day and Night.

Day 2 - The Earth's Atmosphere is created.

Day 3 - The Earth is moved from Kolob's presence and is placed into our current solar system. After Earth enters into an orbit around our sun, it is impacted by Theia. Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From this event The Sun, Moon, and Stars are created...

I am curious why you assume (as most who try to pocket scientific knowledge about our universe into God's universe) that the material we learn about here is the same material that God uses. Maybe you don't assume that but one would have to if we try to take our scientific knowledge and apply it to God's works. How do we know that the physics and the astronomy etc. carries the same scientific principles as would the fine matter that God uses?

As far as I can tell, we do not know any scientific principles that relate to the fine matter that makes up the universe of God. Possibly, "Day 3 - The Earth is moved from Kolob's presence and is placed ..." refers more to a transfiguration of the material from fine to the course material we find ourselves in now. I think it would be more in line with our gospel to assume that God doesn't really work directly with course material, it may not be able to exist very well with the fine material of His universe. If I am even close to 'barking up the right tree' with that, then it becomes a effort in futility to try to explain God's works with "coarse" material physics, including space time theories, creation theories, big bang etc. You will appreciate this ... it is kind of like watching Dr. Oz compared to what you learned in medical school. Maybe one would glean some rudimentary understanding of some of the basics but it really isn't the same stuff.

[mikbone]

I am curious why you assume (as most who try to pocket scientific knowledge about our universe into God's universe) that the material we learn about here is the same material that God uses. Maybe you don't assume that but one would have to if we try to take our scientific knowledge and apply it to God's works. How do we know that the physics and the astronomy etc. carries the same scientific principles as would the fine matter that God uses?

As far as I can tell, we do not know any scientific principles that relate to the fine matter that makes up the universe of God. Possibly, "Day 3 - The Earth is moved from Kolob's presence and is placed ..." refers more to a transfiguration of the material from fine to the course material we find ourselves in now. I think it would be more in line with our gospel to assume that God doesn't really work directly with course material, it may not be able to exist very well with the fine material of His universe. If I am even close to 'barking up the right tree' with that, then it becomes a effort in futility to try to explain God's works with "coarse" material physics, including space time theories, creation theories, big bang etc. You will appreciate this ... it is kind of like watching Dr. Oz compared to what you learned in medical school. Maybe one would glean some rudimentary understanding of some of the basics but it really isn't the same stuff.

D&C 138:7-8 Yes spirit is this fine or more pure matter. Perhaps the Dark Energy that Scientist are searching for is actually this spirit matter... In that case we will never find it using the scientific method. We have no idea how spirit matter works. But it is obvious that we interact with it during our lives (those of us religious sort anyhow).

Abraham chapter 4 describes the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation was done by Heavenly Father. Elohim is the architect. I think that no one during our pre-mortal existence (excepting of course Jehovah) was allowed to witness this event.

Genesis & Moses deal with the physical creation that was performed by Jehovah. Jesus Christ is the carpenter. Jehovah did work directly with the coarse material.

Jesus Christ created the heaven and the earth under the Father’s direction (see Moses 1:31–33 ; 2:1 ). Others were privileged to assist Him in the Creation, including Michael, or Adam. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed?” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:74-75),

This is all very plainly taught in the temple narrative.

Edited March 8, 2012 by mikbone

[onefour1]

When I read Genesis or any other account of the creation, I don't read that the earth was created on the first day.

Genesis 1: 1- 5

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Here we first read that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. It then goes on to say that God said, "let there be light" and there was light. He then divided this light from the darkness and called light day, and the darkness night. This period of light and darkness was the first day. Didn't the light come after the earth was created? If so, then the earth was created before the first day. Thus, all we know about the earth's creation is that it was created in the beginning. I believe that the earth was created sometime in the beginning which could be quite some time before God said, "let there be light".

[mikbone]

Didn't the light come after the earth was created? If so, then the earth was created before the first day. Thus, all we know about the earth's creation is that it was created in the beginning. I believe that the earth was created sometime in the beginning which could be quite some time before God said, "let there be light".

Perhaps. I don't pretend to know what happened on day one.

But if I was to make assumptions based on both modern day prophets and science...

Part one

Earth Formed from other Planets

"This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live." (Joseph Smith Jr., Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841, as recorded in the Clayton Record)

This description very closely resembles what astrophysicist say occurs during a supernova event. Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For brevity, in a supernova model, as a star larger than our sun goes through its life cycle it starts to burn the lighter elements into more and more heavier elements through fusion and a series of core collapses. Eventually a Nickel-Iron core is created which in turn cannot exert enough outward pressure to prevent a the atomic nuclei themselves from collapsing. This in turn causes the entire star to implode and collapse. Which then creates a massive pressure and temperature increase that causes the supernova explosion.

The supernova model would explain Joseph Smith's comment that our earth was made from other planets, and also how our planet is composed of many heavy elements. This event of course would explain the creation of light as supernova are extremely luminous events.

Part two

"Again as a proof that matter is eternal and that this earth was formed out of unorganized matter let a man take a good telescope at 4 AM and look at the sword in the belt of Orion. And he can see unorganized matter enough to make a million worlds each as large as the sun." (Orson Pratt, meeting of the twelve apostles on September 13, 1846 as recorded by Wilford Woodruff)

Orson Pratt was spot on according to our current observations. Protoplanetary disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you check out this link, the first image that you see on the top right is a star forming region within the Orion Nebula just as Orson Pratt described over 150 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph Smith had privately explained these concepts to Pratt. If you look very closely at the image, you can see where God is dividing the light from the darkness.

These protoplanetary discs are where new young stars as well as planets are organized out of the debris and shockwave of supernovas.

All in all, a pretty awesome day.

Edited March 8, 2012 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

D&C 138:7-8 Yes spirit is this fine or more pure matter. Perhaps the Dark Energy that Scientist are searching for is actually this spirit matter... In that case we will never find it using the scientific method. We have no idea how spirit matter works. But it is obvious that we interact with it during our lives (those of us religious sort anyhow).

Abraham chapter 4 describes the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation was done by Heavenly Father. Elohim is the architect. I think that no one during our pre-mortal existence (excepting of course Jehovah) was allowed to witness this event.

Genesis & Moses deal with the physical creation that was performed by Jehovah. Jesus Christ is the carpenter. Jehovah did work directly with the coarse material.

Jesus Christ created the heaven and the earth under the Father’s direction (see Moses 1:31–33 ; 2:1 ). Others were privileged to assist Him in the Creation, including Michael, or Adam. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed?” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:74-75),

This is all very plainly taught in the temple narrative.

Thanks. I agree with what you are saying here except I don't think that course matter interacts with fine matter in that way. I think that our own spirit, which is fine matter can interact with fine matter but there is nothing to suggest that course matter can affect fine matter in any controlled or purposeful way. In the other direction, I wasn't trying to imply that fine matter couldn't interact with coarse matter. I was just trying to imply that likely the interaction is not a natural occurrence. There likely has to be some process to go about dealing with coarse matter from a fine matter standpoint. Otherwise, ol' satan or anyone could, at least in some limited way, interact with coarse matter without permission to do so. I think satan was given dominion but only for a short time in which it will be taken away.

I agree, though, with selected spirits being involved in the process but the process itself of how the two types of matter interact may not be a natural occurrence of any kind that is measurable from our current view. To assume that it can be measured through "course matter eyes", I think is a mistake.

Along those line, I also disagree with the notion that to have a body is part of the "natural" progression of our being. I think having a body is a privilege that goes beyond the natural state of our spirit being. We are told that it is something that we could never even "pay back" God for this gift. It is a blessing and an opportunity that has to be earned, we had to keep our first estate, which to me reinforces the notion that there is no natural interaction between fine matter and course matter. The interaction has to be controlled, earned, planned and programmed to interact in predestined ways according to God's plan. There is no fine matter floating around somewhere in the universe that doesn't have a distinct God driven purpose, even if we could see it (which we can't anyways).

Edited March 8, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[mikbone]

Thanks. I agree with what you are saying here except I don't think that course matter interacts with fine matter in that way. I think that our own spirit, which is fine matter can interact with fine matter but there is nothing to suggest that course matter can affect fine matter in any controlled or purposeful way. In the other direction, I wasn't trying to imply that fine matter couldn't interact with coarse matter. I was just trying to imply that likely the interaction is not a natural occurrence. There likely has to be some process to go about dealing with coarse matter from a fine matter standpoint. Otherwise, ol' satan or anyone could, at least in some limited way, interact with coarse matter without permission to do so. I think satan was given dominion but only for a short time in which it will be taken away.

What about evil spirits possessing the bodies of animals and even other children of God? I'll say straight up that I don't know how the interactions occur between element and spirit. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that course matter cannot affect fine matter in a controlled or purposeful way.

Along those line, I also disagree with the notion that to have a body is part of the "natural" progression of our being.

The scriptures disagre with your above statement.

D&C 93:33-34, D&C 45:17, D&C 138:17,50

We are the offspring of resurrected eternal beings of Flesh and Bone. Our natural progression is to become as they are. I am completely confused with your assertations...

There is no fine matter floating around somewhere in the universe that doesn't have a distinct God driven purpose, even if we could see it (which we can't anyways).

Your proof?

Edited March 8, 2012 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

What about evil spirits possessing the bodies of animals and even other children of God? I'll say straight up that I don't know how the interactions occur between element and spirit. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that course matter cannot affect fine matter in a controlled or purposeful way.

The scriptures disagre with your above statement.

D&C 93:33-34, D&C 45:17, D&C 138:17,50

We are the offspring of resurrected eternal beings of Flesh and Bone. Our natural progression is to become as they are. I am completely confused with your assertations...

Your proof?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "evil spirit". Is epilepsy an evil spirit? Is a desire to do methamphetamine an evil spirit? Is a propensity for alcoholism an evil spirit? Is a desire to do evil an evil spirit? If so, my body is full of "evil spirits" right now (not in relation to meth or alcohol, lol, those are just examples). I do my best to not let them be in control, of course.

None of the scriptures you gave disagree with anything I said. You are a doctor, do all of your earthly offspring become doctors? I doubt it. Would it be a reasonable assumption that all of your offspring want to become doctors and will naturally have a desire to do so? No. We are spirit children of our Heavenly Father. At a certain point in our development we were offered a plan of progression, some opted out of that plan for further progression. It obviously wasn't "natural" or part of their nature to be like their Father in that respect. That was their own decision after hearing the options. A lot of us will "tell" our Heavenly Father that we do not want to be exactly like Him and opt for lesser Kingdoms, based in our choices and our expressed desires of the heart. It will not be in their natures to reach that level of perfection.

Once we have passed the first estate, of course, we look forward to receiving the body upon resurrection (as in D&C 45) but that was based in being valiant (merit). If a spirit sat around all by him or herself in the pre-existence I don't see any way possible, in my very limited understanding of the whole plan, that that person would somehow achieve the ability to join with a physical body. It has to be done through a "gifting" (for lack of a better word) process. It has to be given and earned. In that sense, it is not natural for a spirit to be joined with a body. We are not talking about the polymorphism seen with a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, for example, where there is no other pathway but that one.

To reach the fullness of our joy, yes, we need a body. The "fullness of joy" though, is not the default result of living as a spirit or a mortal soul. There is a price to pay for that privilege. There is a difference between potential and the natural order of things. Because He is our Father so we have that potential but that does not mean we can't take ourselves off the pathway to that potential.

Are fallen, cast out spirits still "offspring" of God? (I would assume so, but I really don't know the answer to that, curious what you think)

[Vort]

Is a propensity for alcoholism an evil spirit?

I'd say demon rum is an evil spirit.

[mikbone]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "evil spirit". Is epilepsy an evil spirit? Is a desire to do methamphetamine an evil spirit? Is a propensity for alcoholism an evil spirit? Is a desire to do evil an evil spirit? If so, my body is full of "evil spirits" right now (not in relation to meth or alcohol, lol, those are just examples). I do my best to not let them be in control, of course.

Legion (Mark 5:2-13) is a good example of what I mean by an evil spirit...

None of the scriptures you gave disagree with anything I said. You are a doctor, do all of your earthly offspring become doctors? I doubt it. Would it be a reasonable assumption that all of your offspring want to become doctors and will naturally have a desire to do so? No. We are spirit children of our Heavenly Father. At a certain point in our development we were offered a plan of progression, some opted out of that plan for further progression. It obviously wasn't "natural" or part of their nature to be like their Father in that respect. That was their own decision after hearing the options. A lot of us will "tell" our Heavenly Father that we do not want to be exactly like Him and opt for lesser Kingdoms, based in our choices and our expressed desires of the heart. It will not be in their natures to reach that level of perfection.

You stated it was not a natural progression for Heavenly Father's spirit children to receive material bodies... You are wrong. It is the natural progression. Only a third of the pre-mortal existence spirits were denied bodies and only because they openly rebelled against Father. Everyone else will be reunited with their body during their respective resurrection, even the Sons of Perdition. And the third that followed Lucifer have great enmity toward us mortals. They want us to fail because they desire us to be as unhappy as they are. Perhaps they are unhappy because they have been damned and denied a body...

You are trying to argue that it is not normal for all Father's children to become as Father is. I agree. Many of the souls that are tested in second estate will be damned and fail. But that was not the issue of our discussion. Our discussion was about it being natural for a spirit child of Heavenly Father to have a body... The scriptures that I refered to support this concept. Furthermore, those that do progress according to the plan of salvation will have the opportunity to become like Heavenly Father. I believe that Father wants everyone of us to succede.

Are fallen, cast out spirits still "offspring" of God? (I would assume so, but I really don't know the answer to that, curious what you think)

Depends on how you look at it.

Elohim created their spirits so yes, they are technically his offspring.

On the other hand those of the third host that followed Lucifer have probably been 'adopted' as his children. I would assume that they consider Lucifer as their father...

Edited March 9, 2012 by mikbone