eternal elements and creation

[cryophil]

In D&C 93 it says:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Joseph Smith taught:

"[elements] may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had not beginning, and can have no end." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844)

Brigham Young taught:

"God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist." (JD 14:116)

But physics is clearly showing now that at "just before" the big bang there were no elements. Not even sub-atomic, not even sub-sub nuclear particles. Not light, energy, matter of any kind. It was completely nothing. Cosmologists tout that in fact, not only did everything arise from nothing, it did it by spontaneous self-generation. ("A universe from nothing" Lawrence Krauss)

Does this mean that the original ex-nihilo Christian teaching is now correct?

[cryophil]

"elements" can mean quite a lot of different things. Surely you do not believe that there was a time when there was no energy, no strings, no space - completely absolutely totally nothing?

I don't think many scientists believe there was a time of complete nothingness...

Cosmologists (those who study such things) are pretty much agreed. There was complete nothingness. Not even space-time geometery, not energy, not matter of any kind at any size. Nothing. "Strings" (of now-called membrane theory) are theoretical. There's never been any observation of them. However, even the theory, if I understand it (it's not my specialty) does not predict them before the big bang. Rather, they erupt trillionths of trillionths of seconds (~10^-35s) after the big bang moment.

[cryophil]

I think you trust Cosmologists too much . There is no way to test what came before the big bang, so anything anyone says on it is pure speculation. there are many TOE's, most include multiple euclidean dims above our 3D+t world, so even if nothing existed in our dim, there are multiverses full of stuff out there...

I'm more of a fan of the conservation laws of thermodynamics myself - conservation of mass, energy etc. etc. which state you don't get something from nothing

It's clear that you only have a basic understanding of physics.

[Guest]

I think you trust Cosmologists too much . There is no way to test what came before the big bang, so anything anyone says on it is pure speculation.

And even that there is such a thing as a big bang is speculation as well...

So, how is that any different from what Brigham Young said?

No difference as I see it.

Now, how is the exact events of the origin of the earth significant to the Plan of Salvation? It's not.

[cryophil]

Now, how is the exact events of the origin of the earth significant to the Plan of Salvation? It's not.

The creation, arrival of man and fall are at the center of the Plan. For as in Adam all men die, all are made alive ....etc. The Atonement relies on very specific factors that are claimed to have happened at creation and the fall. If those things are just metaphors, then is the atonement likewise?

[HiJolly]

The creation, arrival of man and fall are at the center of the Plan. For as in Adam all men die, all are made alive ....etc. The Atonement relies on very specific factors that are claimed to have happened at creation and the fall. If those things are just metaphors, then is the atonement likewise?

*we* are at the center of the plan. Atonement makes it possible for us to be more than we ever dreamed. Metaphor? Myth? If it changes our hearts, it is as real for us as anything we perceive. For we only know what we perceive, be it physical, emotional or spiritual. If we then engage faith, then we can be whatever we seek to be.

This is the heart and value of religion.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Ancient Jewish Cosmogony. Cool stuff.

HiJolly

[volgadon]

This is a pretty damning review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain *arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-*quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-*theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

[Guest]

[cryophil]

This is a pretty damning review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-*theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields!

Albert at first confuses (then sort of corrects himself) the existence of a model with the thing it is meant to model. Relativistic-QFT is an equation (model) used to calculate a probability density of certain states. Those actual states (physical) are not the math. They are not laws. They are stuff. Albert is not claiming that there is stuff. He's claiming that there's a model and that's something!! But the model wasn't/isn't there. Just the possibility of interaction in a probabilistic manner. When we say probabilistic manner, we mean, randomness with a normal-distribution in the limit of infinity. (that is, if things were to pop into existence, they would interact randomly and large groups of them would have interactions that fall under a modeled distribution which is a solution to Relativistic-QFT.)

Lawrence clarifies something Albert must have missed. I'll quote Krauss in reference to Albert's type of question (paraphrased as--A quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing--at the least it has QFT):

"That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever (which is what the book argues), I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying (a model of) quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws (random interactions) that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum...Space didn't exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created; they were created along with the universe...The forces of nature, the definition of particles---all these things come into existence with the universe, and in a different universe, different forces and different particles might exist."

Albert didn't understand Krauss' argument. His critique is invalid.

[annewandering]

There was nothing.

Then it exploded.

Ya right.

Now a guy on my facebook friends list has an interesting theory he is promoting. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Creation-Physics/135994613122429

I am not going to say he is right but he is trying.

[volgadon]

Albert at first confuses (then sort of corrects himself) the existence of a model with the thing it is meant to model. Relativistic-QFT is an equation (model) used to calculate a probability density of certain states. Those actual states (physical) are not the math. They are not laws. They are stuff. Albert is not claiming that there is stuff. He's claiming that there's a model and that's something!! But the model wasn't/isn't there. Just the possibility of interaction in a probabilistic manner. When we say probabilistic manner, we mean, randomness with a normal-distribution in the limit of infinity. (that is, if things were to pop into existence, they would interact randomly and large groups of them would have interactions that fall under a modeled distribution which is a solution to Relativistic-QFT.)

Lawrence clarifies something Albert must have missed. I'll quote Krauss in reference to Albert's type of question (paraphrased as--A quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing--at the least it has QFT):

"That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever (which is what the book argues), I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying (a model of) quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws (random interactions) that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum...Space didn't exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created; they were created along with the universe...The forces of nature, the definition of particles---all these things come into existence with the universe, and in a different universe, different forces and different particles might exist."

Albert didn't understand Krauss' argument. His critique is invalid.

Actually, I think you don't understand Albert's argument, or else stopped reading before this paragraph. His point is that Krauss is wrong to talk of "nothing."

Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.

[cryophil]

Actually, I think you don't understand Albert's argument, or else stopped reading before this paragraph. His point is that Krauss is wrong to talk of "nothing."

I read it, and Albert states it without ever yielding an actual physics argument, except to get confused between quantum vacuum empty space and NO Space. He just states that by his (Albert's) definition (the confused one), Krauss version of nothing is wrong. (” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.") And Krauss' retort (I quoted) still stands.

I've read the book. I read Albert. I have physics degrees. I stand with Krauss.

That being said, Krauss cannot argue that this is what DID happen. Just that it's plausible.

In the spirit of change, I'm no longer arguing that it DID happen (as in my strongly worded OP), but that even if you take what we do have evidence for, D&C 93 and the statements I quoted in the OP are very suspect.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cryophil

[Traveler]

In D&C 93 it says:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Joseph Smith taught:

"[elements] may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had not beginning, and can have no end." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844)

Brigham Young taught:

"God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist." (JD 14:116)

But physics is clearly showing now that at "just before" the big bang there were no elements. Not even sub-atomic, not even sub-sub nuclear particles. Not light, energy, matter of any kind. It was completely nothing. Cosmologists tout that in fact, not only did everything arise from nothing, it did it by spontaneous self-generation. ("A universe from nothing" Lawrence Krauss)

Does this mean that the original ex-nihilo Christian teaching is now correct?

First off, even for brilliant cosmologists nothing is hard to define without defining “it” as something. For example we may think of the empty vacuum of space as nothing – however, there is both dimensional space and time – both of which cannot be classified as nothing. Attempting to define nothing removed from space and time brings us back to singularity – but even in singularity we have defined “something”.

If you listen carefully to the latest theories of astrophysics and cosmology you will realize that there are multiple theories that deal with what is called pre-event or beyond the event horizon from which our universe could have possibly come. Initially to get the mathematics of “it” all to work out, it was demonstrated that the big bang could be explained by the collapse of an 11 dimensional universe of “space”. An 11 dimensional universe is something and all succeeding theories attempt to describe the creation of our universe as coming from nothing of our 3 dimensional space time but something that preceded our universe.

Even from the Christian theory of ex-nihilo there is G-d that precedes the universe and the claim is that G-d created the universe from nothing. The great flaw with this thinking is that G-d, of necessity, is “something” and therefore the universe could not have been created from nothing if it was created from G-d.

Even in the weird place of the quantum café we must deal with “possibilities” which also define “something” from which space, time and matter are statistically related as well as defined – which is something. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as soon as we define nothing the definition is itself proves that our view is uncertain.

For LDS there is only one point to define in LDS theology and in so doing we are able to comply with all know possibilities being put forth as “existing” prior to the Big Bang or beyond the event horizon of the initial beginning of our universe. That one point and thought is that which is spirit and spirit matter be defined or understood as matter and energy that exists at some level of multiple dimensions beyond the dimensions of our current physical universe.

The Traveler

[cryophil]

First off, even for brilliant cosmologists nothing is hard to define without defining “it” as something. For example we may think of the empty vacuum of space as nothing – however, there is both dimensional space and time – both of which cannot be classified as nothing. Attempting to define nothing removed from space and time brings us back to singularity – but even in singularity we have defined “something”.

Yep, if you take away everything then there isn't anything. Except possibility. And as you know, in a simple example, possibility integrated over infinity is something with unity probability.

The problem is, philosophers know they're losing this game, so they are trying to tell physicists that they cannot use words, math, possibility, or ___ to define nothing. So they win because they are making up the rules as we go along.

Philosophy isn't winning. They;re whining.

For LDS there is only one point to define in LDS theology and in so doing we are able to comply with all know possibilities being put forth as “existing” prior to the Big Bang or beyond the event horizon of the initial beginning of our universe. That one point and thought is that which is spirit and spirit matter be defined or understood as matter and energy that exists at some level of multiple dimensions beyond the dimensions of our current physical universe.

The Traveler

Complete conjecture. How do you go from God residing in the universe near Kolob to dimensions beyond our universe? When the word elements appear, it was understood how that was understood. God revealed 93 to Joseph, so the words are his language. What you're trying to do is move the definition now that physics is showing the problems. It's the same game.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cryophil

[Traveler]

Yep, if you take away everything then there isn't anything. Except possibility. And as you know, in a simple example, possibility integrated over infinity is something with unity probability.

The problem is, philosophers know they're losing this game, so they are trying to tell physicists that they cannot use words, math, possibility, or ___ to define nothing. So they win because they are making up the rules as we go along.

Philosophy isn't winning. They;re whining.

Complete conjecture. How do you go from God residing in the universe near Kolob to dimensions beyond our universe? When the word elements appear, it was understood how that was understood. God revealed 93 to Joseph, so the words are his language. What you're trying to do is move the definition now that physics is showing the problems. It's the same game.

Conjecture is an important principle of physics and a red herring argument of philosophers. The evolution of conjecture has given rise from thoughts of "The Great Attractor" to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The problem is that the principles of universal physics as an isotropic reality of our universe has been shown to be inconsistent in describing we think we are currently observing both at the macro level of the universe and the micro level of particle physics at the quantum level and "black holes".

All we are left with - my friend, is conjecture because there is no universal theory in science or religion (or for that matter anything else known to man) consistent enough to be considered reliable. If you are going to pew pew conjecture concerning this this very uncertain topic you brought up - they we have absolutely "nothing" at all to talk about.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Cosmologists (those who study such things) are pretty much agreed. There was complete nothingness. Not even space-time geometery, not energy, not matter of any kind at any size. Nothing. "Strings" (of now-called membrane theory) are theoretical. There's never been any observation of them. However, even the theory, if I understand it (it's not my specialty) does not predict them before the big bang. Rather, they erupt trillionths of trillionths of seconds (~10^-35s) after the big bang moment.

The thing about science is, it's never "done". There was a time, not long distance, when Changed's idea of things--which you now summarily dismiss as "basic"--was itself pretty mainstream and viewed as more or less absolute. We're still learning a lot, and theories are still being developed, reviewed, refined, and occasionally scrapped.

I am quite comfortable with the notion that when we finally know everything, we will see that natural law comports perfectly with revealed scripture insofar as the latter has been translated/interpreted correctly. In the meantime, I'm disinclined to wildly cast aspersions on canonized scripture just because a scientific theory that is in its relative infancy does not yet seem to square perfectly with a centuries-old statement that may or may not have been intended to address the same particular issue.

I wish I could remember who originated the statement about "don't let what you don't know get in the way of what you do know".

God revealed 93 to Joseph, so the words are his language. [emphasis added]

Where in high Hades did you get that idea?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

...

I wish I could remember who originated the statement about "don't let what you don't know get in the way of what you do know".

...

Great point. Often in my consulting work I have reminded my customer that before we get too excited about what we think we do not know - lets make sure that we have carefully considered everything that we do know. -- I have never gotten very far considering what is unknown and have only been able to make progress based on what we do know.

The Traveler

[cryophil]

Conjecture is an important principle of physics and a red herring argument of philosophers....there is no universal theory in science or religion.... If you are going to pew pew conjecture concerning this this very uncertain topic you brought up - they we have absolutely "nothing" at all to talk about.

Conjecture is not the same thing as hypothesis.

What you raised was that the answer to my question lies in spirit matter that belongs to a realm that we cannot measure. That's conjecture and is not helpful because it cannot be used for experimentation. If you cannot observe it under controlled or at least repeatable/verifiable conditions, and you cannot find a way to negate the "conjecture" then it cannot serve as a hypothesis. So as such, it doesn't help the discussion.

I am quite comfortable with the notion that when we finally know everything, we will see that natural law comports perfectly with revealed scripture insofar as the latter has been translated/interpreted correctly.

Interesting. I find that attitude seems quite prevalent here: that science seems to be supporting the doctrine/scriptures. However, it seems to me to be going increasingly the other way.

Moses 3:8 Adam is first man--dispelled overwhelmingly by science

2 Ne 2:22 all things were kept from death until fall -- again dispelled

D&C 77:6 earth's temporal (mortal) age is a few thousand years -- dispellled

Alma 10:3 Lehi's family descends from Israel/manasseh -- dispelled by DNA anthropology

3 Nephi ch 8-10 destruction of dozens of cities in a few short days -- dismantled by archaeology

4 Nephi utopian society of christians spread across the land of America and live in peace for 200 years -- archaeology, anthropology, and more demolished

Abraham 3:3 & Fac 2,Fig 5 Our sun is governed by and receives its light from Kolob -- demolished by astronomy as a principle

Egyptian (regular and reformed) translations by Joseph Smith -- smashed by linguists

D&C 89 alcohol & coffee bad -- demolished by science, when used in moderation

The bible is also riddled with similar issues from science.

But if you're comfortable...

In the meantime, I'm disinclined to wildly cast aspersions on canonized scripture just because a scientific theory that is in its relative infancy does not yet seem to square perfectly with a centuries-old statement that may or may not have been intended to address the same particular issue.

What about the established scientific theories which cast confirmed and daunting aspersions on the scriptures?

The point of this thread was that there are already a lot of issues coming from established science, and I am seeing yet another problem for revealed word from an upcoming branch in cosmology.

If you have an example of where science had to retreat something determined since the restoration, and that something was contradictory to the revealed word which was then vindicated, I would like to see it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cryophil

[Traveler]

Conjecture is not the same thing as hypothesis.

What you raised was that the answer to my question lies in spirit matter that belongs to a realm that we cannot measure. That's conjecture and is not helpful because it cannot be used for experimentation. If you cannot observe it under controlled or at least repeatable/verifiable conditions, and you cannot find a way to negate the "conjecture" then it cannot serve as a hypothesis. So as such, it doesn't help the discussion.

...

Okay - Before making any additional attempts to discuss "spiritual matter" - Please review with me all the known properties or parameters of spiritual matter that you have found that fall into the category of being measurable? Or give me one principle of "spiritual matter" you believe or accept as a possibility that falls into this category of being measurable.

In fact - since this is your thread that you started - I assume by your own rules - kindly review with me at least 10 elements that have a measurable eternal nature - or anything at all that can be measured beyond the "event horizon" of "creation" or perhaps beyond the event horizon of a black hole - assuming you believe in black holes as something that exist beyond their own event horizon.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Interesting. I find that attitude seems quite prevalent here: that science seems to be supporting the doctrine/scriptures.

Umm, no. My expressed attitude was that natural law will comport with properly interpreted doctrine/scripture. Surely you see the difference?

However, it seems to me to be going increasingly the other way.

Moses 3:8 Adam is first man--dispelled overwhelmingly by science

2 Ne 2:22 all things were kept from death until fall -- again dispelled

Thank you for proving my point. Moses 3:8 does not say Adam was the first man. 2 Ne 2:22 doesn't mention death at all.

D&C 77:6 earth's temporal (mortal) age is a few thousand years -- dispellled

Granted, for the time being, if one takes an absolutist reading of the scripture.

Alma 10:3 Lehi's family descends from Israel/manasseh -- dispelled by DNA anthropology

3 Nephi ch 8-10 destruction of dozens of cities in a few short days -- dismantled by archaeology

4 Nephi utopian society of christians spread across the land of America and live in peace for 200 years -- archaeology, anthropology, and more demolished

Do you really not get the difference between "not (currently) supported by" and "dispelled"?

DNA analysis is a great tool; but it has its limitations even in the criminal forensic arena. The issues with "proving" or "disproving" the ancestry of a particular native American group via DNA have been dealt with elsewhere.

Archaeologically, even most scientists I've dealt with aren't foolish enough to say that absence of evidence "disproves" anything. All we can say is that something doesn't harmonize with the evidence we've gathered to date.

Abraham 3:3 & Fac 2,Fig 5 Our sun is governed by and receives its light from Kolob -- demolished by astronomy as a principle

Oh, so you understand what was meant in scripture by the word "govern"? Please enlighten me.

Egyptian (regular and reformed) translations by Joseph Smith -- smashed by linguists

You know what reformed Egyptian is? Again, please enlighten me.

D&C 89 alcohol & coffee bad -- demolished by science, when used in moderation

D&C 89 doesn't dismiss "hot drinks" or "strong drinks" as medically bad for you; it just says they're not for the body and we shouldn't take them.

But if you're comfortable...

I daresay I am quite as comfortable with my perceptions as you seem to be with the flagrantly disingenuous interpretations of scripture you have offered in order to support your own religious devotion to Science.™

If you have an example of where science had to retreat something determined since the restoration, and that something was contradictory to the revealed word which was then vindicated, I would like to see it.

You mean, like, the composition of the atom? Quantum mechanics? The limited applicability of Newtonian physics? The existence (or lack thereof) of aether? Countless pronouncements about what happened during different epochs of the earth's existence? Plate tectonics?

Granted, Mormonism doesn't seem to have predicted any of these developments. But it doesn't have to. As a religion, Mormonism is concerned with predicting the means whereby one can have a qualitatively better and more meaningful life; and the state of mankind's existence both before birth and after death. And in my experience, it's done a pretty fine job of that so far.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[cryophil]

Thank you for proving my point. Moses 3:8 does not say Adam was the first man. 2 Ne 2:22 doesn't mention death at all.

Moses 3:7 my bad

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

2 ne 2:22

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

I daresay I am quite as comfortable with my perceptions as you seem to be with the flagrantly disingenuous interpretations of scripture you have offered in order to support your own religious devotion to Science.™

Actually,I use the interpretations the prophets have given in the TPJS, Jesus the Christ, Gospel Principles, etc. These are approved sources.

[Martain]

At one point, it was taught that the smallest division of matter was the atom with is protons neutrons and electrons. Then... what the quark!? We found something even smaller!

Now I admit I'm not as educated regarding current quantum theory and research as you two. Yet I can't recreate the big bang to prove if that's what actually happened and I'm not aware that anyone else has either.

I can't see it, feel it, touch it, taste it, or smell it. None of my 5 senses allow me to prove whether that theory is true. Therefore, if I or anyone else choose to accept the Big Bang Theory as what really happened, what we're actually doing is accepting it on faith. Faith in science, faith in mathematics, faith in experts who say they know what they're talking about, faith in astrology, faith in our own powers of reasoning and intellect etc.

Unless things have changed, we still don't have a solid theory as to what's beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Our theories and mathematics simply break down and are inadequate to explain such a phenomenon and I expect it's the same for the Big Bang Theory as well. We can't see into the past beyond the theorized Big Bang. Our understanding and skill in mathematics and physics simply breaks down.

Who is to say that there wasn't chaotic matter unorganized which the Lord then gathered together and then 'blew up' in a controlled manner via what we call the 'Big Bang Theory' in order to distribute matter in the manner he desired so as to form galaxies and worlds without end? Who is to say that there isn't some other explanation and that the Big Bang Theory is completely off the mark?

The Big Bang Theory is a good theory especially in light that I don't know of any better. We don't know for certain, hence why it's a theory, but it's a pretty good working model for now. Yet that doesn't preclude God or divine creation at all. Nor does it go counter to what the Lord has revealed.

In D&C 93 it says:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Joseph Smith taught:

"[elements] may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had not beginning, and can have no end." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844)

I have no problem reconciling these doctrines and the Big Bang theory.

I guess I don't understand... how can physics clearly show that just before the big bang there was no elements? How can an unproven theory, regardless as how widely accepted it is, clearly show anything? How can physics clearly show what you say it shows? Until we can recreate such conditions... isn't it all theory?

I don't know that the Big Bang Theory is true or not. What I do know, is that God lives and that he did create/organize matter to form this universe. How did he do it? That's a mystery. Was it via the Big Bang? Why not? Does it really matter to me? No.

Since I do know what I just said I know, I know that Lawrence Krauss's theory is wrong and that no, if God did use a big bang, there were elements prior to it.

My knowledge came through faith in Christ. Faith which grew into knowledge. What I know it's no longer a theory. We can't prove that the Big Bang Theory happened as Mr. Krauss indicates but I was able to prove that the doctrines revealed by God are true and so can you.

So in answer to your question, "Does this mean that the original ex-nihilo Christian teaching is now correct?" my answer is, no.

[Just_A_Guy]

Moses 3:7 my bad

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

2 ne 2:22

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

I appreciate the correction for Moses 3:7. Nevertheless, I think there are good arguments to be made about the scope of that scripture's assertion and whether it is intended to be absolute or limited, and whether Adam as "first man" is a reference to the novelty of his physical, mental, or spiritual faculties. The same discussion as to scope applies in 2 Ne 2:22--the thrust of that scripture is Adam and Eve and their progeny, not necessarily the earth as a whole. "All things" need not be taken more literally than "everything", which in modern parlance usually doesn't really mean "every single thing in existence in the known universe".

Actually,I use the interpretations the prophets have given in the TPJS, Jesus the Christ, Gospel Principles, etc. These are approved sources.

If you want to take issue with some of the "approved" interpretations, feel free. I'll even join you on some of them.

But I wish you wouldn't suggest that I as a Mormon am theologically mandated to accept those interpretations at face value. I'm not. The "approved sources" of today don't always jive with the "approved sources" at other points in Church history--in January of 1844, for example, the Times and Seasons (of which Joseph Smith was editor) published a letter from W.W. Phelps suggesting that the earth may be over two and a half billion years old. There was room in the Church for those who rejected "young-earth creationism" in Victorian times, and I submit that there still is today.

The Church is not rejecting members with differing interpretations from communion. Until it does, the only thing I'm absolutely bound to is the plain text of canonized scripture and whatever revelations I have received directly from God.

[Vort]

Interesting. I find that attitude seems quite prevalent here: that science seems to be supporting the doctrine/scriptures. However, it seems to me to be going increasingly the other way.

Let us examine your list point by point.

Moses 3:8 Adam is first man--dispelled overwhelmingly by science

False. Science has nothing to say about Adam. No scientific theory has ever mentioned "Father Adam".

2 Ne 2:22 all things were kept from death until fall -- again dispelled

False. Science has nothing to say about the fall of man. The elements of mankind's exercise of agency do not form part of the scientific realm of discovery.

D&C 77:6 earth's temporal (mortal) age is a few thousand years -- dispellled

Only if you accept the Genesis account of creation as formal scientific treatise. I admit that this has indeed been the way of its interpretation among many religious people over the years, but I and millions of other religious people do not so interpret it.

Alma 10:3 Lehi's family descends from Israel/manasseh -- dispelled by DNA anthropology

You are speaking far beyond your knowledge if you believe that DNA anthropology can disprove the existence of a small group of people 2500 years ago.

3 Nephi ch 8-10 destruction of dozens of cities in a few short days -- dismantled by archaeology

What on earth are you talking about? We have seen exactly this happen within the last few hundred years, numerous times.

4 Nephi utopian society of christians spread across the land of America and live in peace for 200 years -- archaeology, anthropology, and more demolished

Your reading of the scriptures is faulty. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon speak of people spreading "across the land of America." This is your wording, not scriptural wording.

Abraham 3:3 & Fac 2,Fig 5 Our sun is governed by and receives its light from Kolob -- demolished by astronomy as a principle

How so? What does astronomy have to say about Kolob?

Egyptian (regular and reformed) translations by Joseph Smith -- smashed by linguists

You have no idea whatsoever what you're speaking of, do you? Do you know anything about linguistics?

In what way do you think linguists have "smashed" Joseph Smith's amazing claims about Egyptian (regular and reformed)?

D&C 89 alcohol & coffee bad -- demolished by science, when used in moderation

This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Science has suggested that small amounts of red wine might show a slight beneficial effect among some groups, and you extrapolate that to be a "demolition" of the Lord's revelation through Joseph Smith that alcoholic or "strong" drinks are to be avoided?

You are not engaging in serious conversation. I do not know whether or not you are sincere, but your arguments are absurd, on the level of those used by antiMormons.

What about the established scientific theories which cast confirmed and daunting aspersions on the scriptures?

I have not yet seen them, unless you are talking about things like a "global" flood.

The point of this thread was that there are already a lot of issues coming from established science, and I am seeing yet another problem for revealed word from an upcoming branch in cosmology.

The problems you claim are mostly illusory, caused by your own ignorance of science or misinterpretation of scriptures.

If you have an example of where science had to retreat something determined since the restoration, and that something was contradictory to the revealed word which was then vindicated, I would like to see it.

Conservation of mass comes to mind.