Who is God?

[Christyba75]

Correct, a new body is given, but in an advanced race why would a new body be necessary? I don't see a new body being necessary to be considered an advanced race.

For Socrates to live forever, using scientific principles, there would need to be a way to record and collect his memories/consciousness so that they could be passed into his new body. Somehow God does that. We don't know how, but he does it. We say that it's a miracle, but a sufficiently evolved being could do that too in theory. Do we not think that God is evolved?

"Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order." [James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 1966, p. 220]

The "Q", are an advanced race with Godlike qualities, at the snap of a finger they change events within lower species, yet even the offspring of the Q are in exact form as their parentage.

Our parentage however, is not the same form as their offspring, why is this? In order to become like our God, our Heavenly Father, we must first receive a mortal body, die, and then resurrect with a new body..

If God was once a man, did he not have children? Does God now not associate with those others? If we have a heavenly mother, do they not have heavenly siblings? Could they not all have advanced as a civilization together? Some being exalted by the knowledge, wisdom, and goodness they achieved within the structure of their society. And then after they had advanced their beings as far as they could, decided to fertilize planets with the seeds of life and then let us be their spirit/metaphorical children (because we come from the same DNA) and they watch us develop much in the way that they did. We know that we are not the first world created. Perhaps there were others sprinkled with the seeds of biology prior to ours, but we were the first one on which a Savior was trialed. Perhaps on others, life was left alone, but on ours they intervened a little more by offering us revelation and a savior who was half man, half God. So their work and reward is to bring to pass the imomrtality and eternal life of humans.

[Traveler]

For Socrates to live forever, using scientific principles, there would need to be a way to record and collect his memories/consciousness so that they could be passed into his new body. Somehow God does that. We don't know how, but he does it. We say that it's a miracle, but a sufficiently evolved being could do that too in theory. Do we not think that God is evolved?

"Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order." [James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 1966, p. 220]

If God was once a man, did he not have children? Does God now not associate with those others? If we have a heavenly mother, do they not have heavenly siblings? Could they not all have advanced as a civilization together? Some being exalted by the knowledge, wisdom, and goodness they achieved within the structure of their society. And then after they had advanced their beings as far as they could, decided to fertilize planets with the seeds of life and then let us be their spirit/metaphorical children (because we come from the same DNA) and they watch us develop much in the way that they did. We know that we are not the first world created. Perhaps there were others sprinkled with the seeds of biology prior to ours, but we were the first one on which a Savior was trialed. Perhaps on others, life was left alone, but on ours they intervened a little more by offering us revelation and a savior who was half man, half God. So their work and reward is to bring to pass the imomrtality and eternal life of humans.

Your approach is as though you do not understand anything associated with multiple dimensional (expansion) theory, quantum theory, Chaos Theory or even current particle physics theory. What kind of scientist are you?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

For Socrates to live forever, using scientific principles, there would need to be a way to record and collect his memories/consciousness so that they could be passed into his new body. Somehow God does that. We don't know how, but he does it. We say that it's a miracle, but a sufficiently evolved being could do that too in theory. Do we not think that God is evolved?

We are "intelligence." Our spirits were gaining knowledge before we even came to earth. Our brain and bodies were not necessary for knowledge to collect. Our memories will be passed on through our spirits, no different than how we learned previously and retained that knowledge before the veil. In light of this I am not following your point.

"Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order." [James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 1966, p. 220]

I agree with Talmage. Miracles are Celestial laws we have not yet understood.

If God was once a man, did he not have children? Does God now not associate with those others?

We don't know, but it can be fun to speculate. Now, I have read two things pertaining to Joseph Smith's quote regarding God was once a man. I have read that he was referring only to Jesus Christ, not God the Father, and I have read that he was referring to God the Father.

If only referring to Christ, which then the statement would be correct, that God was once a man, seeing that we believe Christ to be part of the Godhead. However, if only referring to Christ, then we have a dilemma, and did God really mature as we do, his offspring?

If we have a heavenly mother, do they not have heavenly siblings? Could they not all have advanced as a civilization together?

Have no clue, but again, fun to speculate. President Hinckley said it best, when asked about Heavenly Father, we don't know, there isn't much said.

Some being exalted by the knowledge, wisdom, and goodness they achieved within the structure of their society. And then after they had advanced their beings as far as they could, decided to fertilize planets with the seeds of life and then let us be their spirit/metaphorical children (because we come from the same DNA) and they watch us develop much in the way that they did. We know that we are not the first world created. Perhaps there were others sprinkled with the seeds of biology prior to ours, but we were the first one on which a Savior was trialed. Perhaps on others, life was left alone, but on ours they intervened a little more by offering us revelation and a savior who was half man, half God. So their work and reward is to bring to pass the imomrtality and eternal life of humans.

I don't believe we are "metaphorically" the spirit offspring of God. We are the literal spirit offspring of our Heavenly Father. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point with regard to "spirit/metaphorical children."

DNA? I don't believe I had any DNA when I was a spirit. I have DNA because of the blood which runs through my carnal and corrupt body.

Will DNA exist as a glorified body of flesh and bone, not blood? I personally don't think so. I can find nothing scripturally to support this.

Does God have DNA? I am more inclined to believe this is a negative, but openly express I could be wrong.

[Vort]

Organic evolution does not happen to individuals (Pokemon notwithstanding). Organic evolution happens to a population through time. In the sense of organic evolution, it is impossible for anyone to "evolve" to be like God.

[Christyba75]

Why is it easy to believe that we are the literal offspring of God and that we are made in his image, but we can't believe that we are made of the same substance DNA as he is? Did nobody see the movie Prometheus?

[Dravin]

God is not a superadvanced alien. Exaltation is not just highly evolved technology. We are spirit children of our Father in heaven. The "advanced alien" concept, though popular among anti-Mormons as a way to characterize our beliefs, simply does not mesh with our beliefs about God, man, premortality, and exaltation.

There is also the issue of the Atonement in particular, I fail to see how the necessity and power of the Atonement fits into the theory of Clarkesian magic.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Dravin

[Anddenex]

Why is it easy to believe that we are the literal offspring of God and that we are made in his image, but we can't believe that we are made of the same substance DNA as he is? Did nobody see the movie Prometheus?

Nope, I did not see the movie Promotheus, and I am not sure how Promotheus will teach me about Heavenly Father.

We are of the same substance, however, I am trying to figure out why you think the substance of our spirits, that is in the image of God, carry any DNA.

If you are referring to DNA in a general term, then I would agree. If you are referring the scientific definition of DNA, I don't believe my spirit had any DNA, and it was my spirit, the body of my spirit, which my body is in likeness of, that was already in the image of God.

[Christyba75]

I hope that everyone understands that my primary intention isn't to be argumentative. I'm just suggesting an alternate viewpoint of the same reality. I invited others to poke holes in it while I run around trying to plug them if I can. Ultimately, I may have to stretch pretty far to make it work, and if I fail, it will all come crashing down on me. I appreciate the rebuttals.

Maybe before we can debate whether or not God shares our DNA, we could discuss whether or not he and spiritual matter are at least made of the basic particles of nature: quarks, leptons, and bosons.

I'm just suggesting that there may be a natural/scientific way to view what we traditionally view as spiritual/religious/mystical. I don't mean to say that we currently understand either viewpoint, just that it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

[Anddenex]

I hope that everyone understands that my primary intention isn't to be argumentative. I'm just suggesting an alternate viewpoint of the same reality. I invited others to poke holes in it while I run around trying to plug them if I can. Ultimately, I may have to stretch pretty far to make it work, and if I fail, it will all come crashing down on me. I appreciate the rebuttals.

Maybe before we can debate whether or not God shares our DNA, we could discuss whether or not he and spiritual matter are at least made of the basic particles of nature: quarks, leptons, and bosons.

I'm just suggesting that there may be a natural/scientific way to view what we traditionally view as spiritual/religious/mystical. I don't mean to say that we currently understand either viewpoint, just that it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Excellent. I hope you recognize that I am not being argumentative also, solely providing why I would agree and why I would disagree with the sentiments.

I enjoy the conversation and other viewpoints, especially from fellow Latter-Day Saints. I would find it weird to believe that there isn't a natural explanation to our spiritual matter and its relation to our Heavenly Father.

There is probably a natural explanation also, after the veil is removed from all of us, as to why we start out as spirits and not having already a body of flesh and bone like our Heavenly Father.

EDIT: When you mentioned Promotheus, however, I was reminded of when my family of origin was having a conversation regarding the most powerful mafia presently on earth (e.g. Italian, Russian, etc...). My mother responded, "Oh, that is the Russian Mafia of course. They are the most powerful."

We then asked her, "Why do you think the Russian Mafia is the most powerful?"

Mother responded, "Law and Order said so."

Edited November 30, 2012 by Anddenex

[Christyba75]

I do believe, as one of the early GAs said, that spirit is just a more refined version of matter. Maybe it's just a sheet of neutrinos or something like that. Or how about this? Maybe our "intelligence" was just a partition on a great bioneural harddrive that was each individually organized just enough to give us collective sentience, just enough for a portion of us to pick a corporeal existence and another portion of us to self-select for continuation in the ethereal state. We were being just in concept and architecture, much like how a CAD is of a real object, but without any real connection to each other; hence why we have no memory of this pre-mortal existence--the real reason that I don't remember it is because the mortal "I" didn't experience it. The consciousness that was is not the same consciousness that is. And when I die, I die. I really die forever. But my memories are transferred to the great harddrive in the sky (aka spirit prison or paradise) to await the wondrous creation of a new body which will house all my memories and then this new being will believe itself to be me! As far it it knows, it IS me. I will be her. (This begs the question, what is consciousness other than the sum of all one's memories).

Admittedly, a person does not evolve, but he can progress given enough time. Mortality does not afford us much time, but finding a way to become immortal, an individual could progress to become a god. (Isn't that what we teach at church). Sci-Fi literature is filled with stories about this.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Christyba75

[Dravin]

Is anyone else finding this rather lacking in science? It's sure full of technobabble and it sounds 'sciency', but fundamentally, "How about this? What if like the priesthood was nanobots?" isn't really science, not unless you are proposing some method of testing it or serious analysis of how it conforms to currently understood theories. "The Great Harddrive" in the sky isn't science, it's a find-replace for gospel terminology -> technobabble.

[Christyba75]

It's absolute technobabble, but is it really any different that gospelbabble? I didn't mean that to sound disrespectful, but when viewed from a physical, natural, technical perspective, it then makes so many other things sound less important: 1950's standards of modesty, the temperature of one's caffeine, and ward-hopping at BYU.

I am well aware that there's no way to get definitive support for my "theory", I'm just looking for significant incompatibilities with LDS teachings. So far, haven't found any that are convincing to me.

[Guest]

"How about this? What if like the priesthood was nanobots?"

That is totally ridiculous, Dravin. Everyone knows if anything, it's midi-chlorians.

[Guest]

Your approach is as though you do not understand anything associated with multiple dimensional (expansion) theory, quantum theory, Chaos Theory or even current particle physics theory. What kind of scientist are you?

The Traveler

I didn't see an answer to this question.

[Christyba75]

I didn't see an answer to this question.

I run a medical lab, so no, I'm not a physicist, just a boring old PhD. I'm just a scientist in the sense that I prefer a natural and rational answer over a fanciful answer if possible. I'm not suggesting that I understand how entanglement theory or the Higgs boson fit into the concept of prayer and the still small voice, but should we be so opposed to considering that they do?

As far as multi-dimensional theory, my hypothesis does not require it. I'm suggesting that our god is a god in this universe and of these laws.

[Dravin]

It's absolute technobabble, but is it really any different that gospelbabble?

The explanations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't make stuff up because it sounds cool. Which is pretty much what you are doing. The Gospel explains that there was a premortal existence, an atonement, a resurrection, and various other things, it isn't explaining the processes of resurrection or how the atonement cleanses from sin. Generally speaking, the Gospel explains what, you're making up the how, predominately based upon the idea that it sounds cool.

I am well aware that there's no way to get definitive support for my "theory", I'm just looking for significant incompatibilities with LDS teachings. So far, haven't found any that are convincing to me.

You mean other then the fact that they, by your own words, minimize the principles of modesty, the word of wisdom, and how the Lord is currently having his Kingdom structured and run? The disdainful way in which you characterize these things speaks volumes.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Dravin

[SanctitasDeo]

The explanations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't make stuff up because it sounds cool. Which is pretty much what you are doing. The Gospel explains that there was a premortal existence, an atonement, a resurrection, and various other things, it isn't explaining the processes of resurrection or how the atonement cleanses from sin. Generally speaking, the Gospel explains what, you're making up the how, predominately based upon the idea that it sounds cool.

This is about how I feel. I hadn't found the words, yet, but I think these are it.

I have thought about stuff like this before, and it can be interesting. The problem is that it tends to minimize the doctrine--the stuff that is important, like the Atonement--and focuses on the trivial. We don't need a technological explanation for the Spirit World in order to become more Christ-like, and while it might be fun to speculate like that sometimes, I feel like it takes away from the importance of the Gospel--the importance and primacy it should have in our minds.

Wardhopping at BYU really isn't important. However, when reframing the Gospel could threaten doctrines that are important, like the Atonement or commandments like the Law of Chastity or the Word of Wisdom or Love your neighbor (I mean, what really matters, if I am not me, and I am just data in a hard drive in the sky?), then we have a real problem.

I think that is what bothers me about this thread.

[Guest]

Now we're moving on to The Matrix.

[Christyba75]

The explanations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't make stuff up because it sounds cool. Which is pretty much what you are doing. The Gospel explains that there was a premortal existence, an atonement, a resurrection, and various other things, it isn't explaining the processes of resurrection or how the atonement cleanses from sin. Generally speaking, the Gospel explains what, you're making up the how, predominately based upon the idea that it sounds cool.

The gospel doesn't explain why things are they way they are, the gospel just states that it is and maybe goes one layer deep, but beyond that we kind of hit the dead end of "that's just the way God made it." How can God hear all our prayers at the same time? How can the personage of the Holy Ghost be felt everywhere at the same time? Why does God require that I worship him in order to be rewarded by him? I'm that annoying little kid who keeps asking why in response to every answer and am never satisfied with "just because that's the way God wants it to be and we have to trust that." In my quest for answers, the scientific theory is a great model for finding them. I'd just like to keep trying that model for the answer to existence and see if I can harmonize it with my Mormon theology. I really don't want to have to pick one over the other. I love them both and want them to fit each other.

[Christyba75]

This is about how I feel. I hadn't found the words, yet, but I think these are it.

I have thought about stuff like this before, and it can be interesting. The problem is that it tends to minimize the doctrine--the stuff that is important, like the Atonement--and focuses on the trivial. We don't need a technological explanation for the Spirit World in order to become more Christ-like, and while it might be fun to speculate like that sometimes, I feel like it takes away from the importance of the Gospel--the importance and primacy it should have in our minds.

Wardhopping at BYU really isn't important. However, when reframing the Gospel could threaten doctrines that are important, like the Atonement or commandments like the Law of Chastity or the Word of Wisdom or Love your neighbor (I mean, what really matters, if I am not me, and I am just data in a hard drive in the sky?), then we have a real problem.

I think that is what bothers me about this thread.

I do see what you're saying. I guess I can accept that the gospel is not the explanation for everything in the universe and how it all functions, but is rather an overview of some important concepts on how to become a better person.

So, can I still have my midichlorians or will the bishop make me toss them out?

[Dravin]

In my quest for answers, the scientific theory is a great model for finding them.

Except you're not using the scientific theory to find answers. Maybe I missed your falsifiable hypotheses? Your repeatable experiments testing your hypotheses? The resulting evidence? Of course we don't even have to go to questions to get to the heart of this, we can just quote you:

It's absolute technobabble, but is it really any different that gospelbabble?

Edited November 30, 2012 by Dravin

[Christyba75]

I can't test these, other then to cast them before you and ask you to disprove what I'm suggesting.

[Guest]

I can't test these, other then to cast them before you and ask you to disprove what I'm suggesting.

You can't test or offer any evidence, but you want people here to disprove your theory?

[Christyba75]

You can't test or offer any evidence, but you want people here to disprove your theory?

Yes please. I guess I asked the same thing of people back when I was a full-time missionary. It's no wonder so many people slammed the door on us.

Oh well. I guess I'll stop proselyting and keep my little fantasies to myself from now on. :)

[Guest]

Yes please. I guess I asked the same thing of people back when I was a full-time missionary. It's no wonder so many people slammed the door on us.

Oh well. I guess I'll stop proselyting and keep my little fantasies to myself from now on. :)

I didn't serve a mission so I'm not sure what you mean. All I know about is teaching of discussions, and challenges to read the Book of Mormon, pray about the truthfulness of it, and how to recognize the Spirit. I didn't realize anyone was challenging anyone to prove them wrong.