Three "truths"?


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

My reference to King Nebuchadnezzar was not his dream but the "finger" writing on the wall.

 

As for dark matter - its initial designation was the "Great Attractor".  The reason was because something unseen was pulling the largest (at the time) structure (a super cluster of galaxies that prior to the Hubble telescope was thought to be a faint star) in the universe - a super cluster the wrong direction in the vast arena of distant space.  I would point out that the particular super cluster of galaxies was by itself bigger than what scientist believed the entire universe was as resent as 100 years ago. 

 

As scientist have studied our universe they have discovered another force that is expanding the universe at an ever accelerating rate.  They call this expansion force "dark energy"  Beyond observing the far reaches of the universe no one has found any other evidence of dark mater or dark energy.  They are called dark because they cannot be see by any means know - yet.  But what we do know is that this mater and energy is the single most dominant forces ever encountered that is directly involved in the creating and sustaining our universe and it is unlike any matter or energy we have ever before encountered. 

 

Are we seeing evidence of divine elements and forces at work?  If divine elements and forces are at work - isn't it about time we discovered some indication (empirical evidence) of it?  From your vast research - especially into scripture and modern revelation - what other possibilities are there?  What is moving and shaping our universe - G-d or something that is just happening by some sort of chance?

What makes you think that expansion forces (a force that makes matter become further appart - less fine) is a better candidate for spirit matter than a force that attracts?

 

Before you start to say that the "expansion of the universe" is something divine you will first have to explain that there is some territory out there that is not within God's reach that would need to have expansion of material to reach it.  That premise is bizarre to me, that there needs to be some physical expansion of His realm. If it is already within His reach then there is no real "expansion" going on and therefore should not be used as some divine attribute of this dark matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think that expansion forces (a force that makes matter become further appart - less fine) is a better candidate for spirit matter than a force that attracts?

 

Before you start to say that the "expansion of the universe" is something divine you will first have to explain that there is some territory out there that is not within God's reach that would need to have expansion of material to reach it.  That premise is bizarre to me, that there needs to be some physical expansion of His realm. If it is already within His reach then there is no real "expansion" going on and therefore should not be used as some divine attribute of this dark matter.

 

The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart  - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself.  This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within.   The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon.  The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time.  Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).

 

Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere.  That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe.  The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy.  And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back.  Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within.   ---- Are you impressed yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart  - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself.  This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within.   The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon.  The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time.  Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).

 

Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere.  That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe.  The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy.  And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back.  Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within.   ---- Are you impressed yet?

Yes, good explanation.  I am not inclined to think it represents spirit matter but that is okay, still interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I watched Interstellar yesterday...

...Don't leave me hanging...

Was it good? Does it have something relevant to this thread? Is it sci-fi with lot's of psuedo-science or does it attempt to really explore the physics of space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart  - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself.  This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within.   The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon.  The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time.  Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).

 

Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere.  That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe.  The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy.  And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back.  Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within.   ---- Are you impressed yet?

The premise that first has to be established is that spirit matter is supposed to do something physical to course matter.  What is it supposed to do? I don't know if that is really established in our doctrine.  If it has any effect it likely is in terms of making organic things "alive".  Is that what dark matter does, gives life to organic material? 

 

Why wouldn't protons or electrons or neutrons or any other subatomic particle fit that bill just as well?

There is course matter and everything that pertains to its natural existence (which it sounds like dark matter is a part of) and then there is fine matter which is its own system that can exist separately from course matter and does not require course matter to be stable in its system.  So, one test of any particular theory about what is fine matter or not is answering if it could exist by itself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Don't leave me hanging...

Was it good? Does it have something relevant to this thread? Is it sci-fi with lot's of psuedo-science or does it attempt to really explore the physics of space?

 

It was very very good.  But, like most Chris Nolan movies, my head hurt afterwards.  LOL.  If Seminary and Traveler are within driving distance of each other, I'd love to spring for their tickets to see the movie together!  It has a lot of all these things they ping back and forth over.  

 

The movie explores the possibility of 5 dimensions - with gravity transcending time and space - the "folding" of space through wormholes, quadratic equation data coming out of the black hole that solves some formula of some form or other that allows humanity to be transported out of earth, and lots and lots about the theory of relativity and Newton's 3rd law and even puts in the possibility that Love/attraction and the families formed by such has a purpose beyond procreation/eternal regeneration of the species...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following quote from the King Follette discourse seems to suggest that matter is eternal. If that is the case, no reconciliation is needed, as all three statements could be considered as true. That conclusion would then raise questions about the accuracy of the big bang theory. Any response from adherents to the big bang theory?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Before you start to say that the "expansion of the universe" is something divine you will first have to explain that there is some territory out there that is not within God's reach that would need to have expansion of material to reach it.  

 

I realise that the following is quite a diversion from the OP but I'm going to say it anyway, and if it proves to be sufficiently interesting, perhaps someone could make it into a new post.

 

The idea that as Man now is God once was and as God now is man may become suggests the possibility that there are many ex-men out there who are now gods of some sort, and that some of them, or maybe all of them, pre-date our God. If that is the case, no doubt they would also have their own kingdoms and their kingdoms might be territories into which our God's kingdom(s?) could not rightfully expand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realise that the following is quite a diversion from the OP but I'm going to say it anyway, and if it proves to be sufficiently interesting, perhaps someone could make it into a new post.

 

The idea that as Man now is God once was and as God now is man may become suggests the possibility that there are many ex-men out there who are now gods of some sort, and that some of them, or maybe all of them, pre-date our God. If that is the case, no doubt they would also have their own kingdoms and their kingdoms might be territories into which our God's kingdom(s?) could not rightfully expand. 

I doubt the expansion is in terms of territory.  We know, at least in part, that God's glory is in the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  This does not require an ever expanding amount of territory. 

 

I also disagree with the premise that each "God" would have their own proprietary territory.  I would believe that it is all shared as one.  In fact, that would be a nice reasonable explanation of how God could have once been like man and yet be eternal.  If God's inheritance was all that His Father had, then He would have received everything before Him as if He had made those accomplishments Himself (becoming one with His Father).  In that way, there would be no division of territory either.  The separation of territory is not Celestial in nature, that is more like the Telestial Kingdom as one star differs from another and is separate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following quote from the King Follette discourse seems to suggest that matter is eternal. If that is the case, no reconciliation is needed, as all three statements could be considered as true. That conclusion would then raise questions about the accuracy of the big bang theory. Any response from adherents to the big bang theory?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

 

As has been stated earlier, the Big Bang Theory does not state that all matter suddenly came into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing), but that all matter and energy always existed and "started out" as an extremely dense singularity. It's like those old comedy bits where a suitcase holds the furnishings for an entire apartment. When an unsuspecting person comes along and tries to pick it up, he discovers it's much too heavy. Now replace the suitcase with a single point and the apartment with the entire universe. You have an incredibly dense, mass-ive, point that you can't carry anymore because it holds all matter and all energy.

 

http://askgramps.org/29435/mormons-believe-big-bang-theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the expansion is in terms of territory.  We know, at least in part, that God's glory is in the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  This does not require an ever expanding amount of territory. 

 

I also disagree with the premise that each "God" would have their own proprietary territory.  I would believe that it is all shared as one.  In fact, that would be a nice reasonable explanation of how God could have once been like man and yet be eternal.  If God's inheritance was all that His Father had, then He would have received everything before Him as if He had made those accomplishments Himself (becoming one with His Father).  In that way, there would be no division of territory either.  The separation of territory is not Celestial in nature, that is more like the Telestial Kingdom as one star differs from another and is separate. 

 

So in essence you do not believe that something living can grow?  That a living G-d cannot and should not grow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence you do not believe that something living can grow?  That a living G-d cannot and should not grow?

That is a very vague question.  Grow in what way?  Grow in size, grow in stature, grow in wisdom, grow in glory?  What are you asking?

 

God is fully matured, so in that sense He does not grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very vague question.  Grow in what way?  Grow in size, grow in stature, grow in wisdom, grow in glory?  What are you asking?

 

God is fully matured, so in that sense He does not grow.

 

lets ask another question - you think you will inherit all G-d has?   Will you inherit his body?  His gender?  Or do you and G-d and you will keep some things just for yourselves?  If you remain unique - what do you not inherit and why does scripture say we inherit all?

 

As to the first question - something living in this existence implies growth and change.  What does living or life mean to you with your mortal understanding? - why not say G-d is eternally conscious?  Does not "living" imply a physical presents and occupation of empirical space time in this universe?  Does G-d use terms that we understand in our present but in reality or on an eternal scale or in the big picture will deliberately deceive mortals? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets ask another question - you think you will inherit all G-d has?   Will you inherit his body?  His gender?  Or do you and G-d and you will keep some things just for yourselves?  If you remain unique - what do you not inherit and why does scripture say we inherit all?

 

As to the first question - something living in this existence implies growth and change.  What does living or life mean to you with your mortal understanding? - why not say G-d is eternally conscious?  Does not "living" imply a physical presents and occupation of empirical space time in this universe?  Does G-d use terms that we understand in our present but in reality or on an eternal scale or in the big picture will deliberately deceive mortals? 

Just so others reading this realize, these are questions to which the answers have not yet been revealed so these are just my personal opinions.  I think, yes, I would inherit all that God has if I were fortunate enough to make it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.  I believe it is a state of being in which all is shared, all thoughts, all passions, all experience, all glory.  How that is done is a different question that I cannot comprehend right now.  We have demonstrated this ability which is what occured with the atonement, Christ was able to "experience" the acts of others.  This is a very powerful gift and ability that would only be available to those whom have endless increase.  If increase is based in the success of others as we are told, such as the glory of God being the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, then I would expect that to also be my source of eternal happiness in that situation.  This is made possible by having the pure love of Christ, loving others as self.  Then it is possible to "experience" all that another does.  I believe we will have individual bodies but the experience is shared.  I also (again, not yet revealed) believe that "God" refers to our Heavenly Father and Mother as a unit and this is why the family unit is so important to Him in our increasing understanding of what brings Him happiness.  I believe that unit is so strong that it would be hard to speak of them as being separate and this is why, likely, a Heavenly Mother is not spoken of in separate terms.

 

Yes, God has to use terms that we would understand, "according to the flesh".  We are tested here "according to the flesh" not according to some other higher standard of understanding such as what took place in the first estate test.  The first estate test was done with full capacity and understanding of the principles of the gospel and the "secular", fund of knowledge, having matured fully and learned all we possibly could, test. This test is not of that kind.  This test is a test of character, not a fund of knowledge test where having terms explained in detail would be important.

 

In my past work experiences we would test patients as to their ability for abstract thought processing.  For example we would ask them, what does a person mean by saying "if the cat's away the mice will play"?  In some forms of dementia a person has concrete thinking and they would respond with something like, 'don't let the cat out' as opposed to the real meaning of the phrase.  Did Jesus desire to decieve when He spoke in parables?  No.  I think his answer is appropriate for the questions you ask about terms we can understand, "11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

 

To understand things in this way is the test.  How do we understand things, with a spiritual mind or a physical brain understanding?  Blessed are they that see, through spiritual eyes and hear through spiritual ears.  How we hear and see and understand is the test more than how much we see and hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....  I think, yes, I would inherit all that God has if I were fortunate enough to make it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. 

.....

 

Not sure you realize what you answered - since you believe you inherit "all" that G-d has -- Do you believe you will inherit his body and his gender?  If not then you really do not believe you will inherit all that is his?????

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure you realize what you answered - since you believe you inherit "all" that G-d has -- Do you believe you will inherit his body and his gender?  If not then you really do not believe you will inherit all that is his?????

To inherit what He has I would have to have an eternal marriage. My husband and I would be bound, would be one and we would share all.  There would be no deficiency of gender there.  In the Celestial resurrection, we are told, the body is one, like the sun is one.  The Telestial Kingdom is the one in which there are varied bodies as one star differs from another.  So, yes, I think it is possible to inherit all that God has.  Possibly that is the whole purpose of the body and resurrection.  That may be the "zip drive" so-to-speak, that allows the passage of "self" to receive it as inheritance.

 

We already understand that an infant inherits the ability to suckle and to cry.   What natural abilities come with a resurrected Celestial body, especially if it is the same one God received upon His presumed resurrection?

 

Atheletes often proclaim "praise God" for what He has given me, this talent, whenever they achieve.  We say things like where much is given much is required.  Well was it given or was it acquired?  I think we believe it is given.  How? By way of our body.  The parable of the ten talents reflects that ability to give abilities, to give stewardships.  How is it given?  Is it just an assignment or are we actually given the "talents".  I think that is something to ponder.  If one believes "talents" can be given in this life then they certainly could be given in the next life.  If we are faithful in small things here we will be given larger responsibilities in the next - this could be the same as the parable of the 10 talents, if we are faithful in the 5 talents we will be "given" additional ones in the next life.  Given, as opposed to develop.  Yes, that is possible, we already believe it.  I doubt the infant child had the ability to cry in the pre-mortal life.  If one says there is nothing new gained by the body then the purpose of the body is taken away.  We know the body adds to our soul, to our character, not just to our reach. 

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To inherit what He has I would have to have an eternal marriage. My husband and I would be bound, would be one and we would share all.  There would be no deficiency of gender there.  In the Celestial resurrection, we are told, the body is one, like the sun is one.  The Telestial Kingdom is the one in which there are varied bodies as one star differs from another.  So, yes, I think it is possible to inherit all that God has.  Possibly that is the whole purpose of the body and resurrection.  That may be the "zip drive" so-to-speak, that allows the passage of "self" to receive it as inheritance.

 

We already understand that an infant inherits the ability to suckle and to cry.   What natural abilities come with a resurrected Celestial body, especially if it is the same one God received upon His presumed resurrection?

 

Wow - I must admit I did not expect this answer.  I am a little stunned!!!  Just to clarify - you believe gender to be a deficiency?  And that in the Celestial Kingdom we will all share (be one with) the same exact physical body?  :huh: :huh: :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you two been over this before (What inheriting all God has as it relates to Gender)?  I'm having major deja vu.

 

SemSnooz's views on gender in the Celestial Kingdom are wacky. I seem to recall that from before too.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - I must admit I did not expect this answer.  I am a little stunned!!!  Just to clarify - you believe gender to be a deficiency?  And that in the Celestial Kingdom we will all share (be one with) the same exact physical body?  :huh: :huh: :huh:

You asked if I would inherit God's gender.  My answer was there would be no deficiency of gender there because to arrive there one would have to be in an eternal marriage with one of the opposite gender, together as one.  In that way, both genders are accounted for, there is no lacking, no deficiency of anything provided by gender to either of the two of opposite genders.

 

If the soul of man is both spirit and body combined inseparably as opposed to the soul of man just being the spirit alone then that means that God's body adds to His soul, something that His spirit alone could not provide.  If we were to be like God in every way we would also have the characteristics that would come from His body, especially the aspects that are not provided to the character of his "soul" by the spirit alone.

 

If somehow your spirit started this life in my body or visa versa, do you think you would act and think and even be the same person you are now or would there be a difference in traits, manerisms, even thought patterns and decisions? 

 

I do not believe there to be only one body but it sounds to me that there is only one type of body found in the Celestial Kingdom.  We could all have individual copies of the same type.  How many types of bodies did God create in paradise?  One Adam and one Eve, with Eve coming from Adam as if they were one.  This is the way it has always been done, the same bodies created.  Resurrection restores the body to its original creation without one thing lost from its original creation. It has always been done this way, God does not vary.  Corruption varies in its course and direction.  Narrow is the path and single is the path that leads to God because God's path is single and doesn't vary.

 

Maybe there is something more to having His image in our countenance.  Maybe there is something more to the idea of being in the express image of his Father.  Why was Seth and Abel in the express image of their father and not Cain?  Why do the scriptures even mention that they were in the "express image" of their father.  What difference does that make?   It would make a difference if the body also adds to the character as we say it does.  Why did Christ have to be the Only Begotten?  Could He not have gotten the job done with your body or mine for that matter?  Probably not.  Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you two been over this before (What inheriting all God has as it relates to Gender)?  I'm having major deja vu.

 

SemSnooz's views on gender in the Celestial Kingdom are wacky. I seem to recall that from before too.

What are my views on gender?  I think you are misinterpreting what I said. 

 

I believe in gender in the Celestial Kingdom, male and female.   What is wacky about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked if I would inherit God's gender.  My answer was there would be no deficiency of gender there because to arrive there one would have to be in an eternal marriage with one of the opposite gender, together as one.  In that way, both genders are accounted for, there is no lacking, no deficiency of anything provided by gender to either of the two of opposite genders.

 

If the soul of man is both spirit and body combined inseparably as opposed to the soul of man just being the spirit alone then that means that God's body adds to His soul, something that His spirit alone could not provide.  If we were to be like God in every way we would also have the characteristics that would come from His body, especially the aspects that are not provided to the character of his "soul" by the spirit alone.

 

If somehow your spirit started this life in my body or visa versa, do you think you would act and think and even be the same person you are now or would there be a difference in traits, manerisms, even thought patterns and decisions? 

 

I do not believe there to be only one body but it sounds to me that there is only one type of body found in the Celestial Kingdom.  We could all have individual copies of the same type.  How many types of bodies did God create in paradise?  One Adam and one Eve, with Eve coming from Adam as if they were one.  This is the way it has always been done, the same bodies created.  Resurrection restores the body to its original creation without one thing lost from its original creation. It has always been done this way, God does not vary.  Corruption varies in its course and direction.  Narrow is the path and single is the path that leads to God because God's path is single and doesn't vary.

 

Maybe there is something more to having His image in our countenance.  Maybe there is something more to the idea of being in the express image of his Father.  Why was Seth and Abel in the express image of their father and not Cain?  Why do the scriptures even mention that they were in the "express image" of their father.  What difference does that make?   It would make a difference if the body also adds to the character as we say it does.  Why did Christ have to be the Only Begotten?  Could He not have gotten the job done with your body or mine for that matter?  Probably not.  Why is that?

 

I am obviously not understanding your terms or the very long explanation which seems to avoid the specific problem I am trying to address.  Please explain what you mean by "deficiency of gender". 

 

Also there are other concepts that confuse me a little from your explanation.  Do you believe gender is physical and not spiritual?   Is there is anything spiritual to be attached to gender - could you please explain your view on pre physical spiritual gender?

 

Also it appears to me that you are saying that we will all be resurrected to G-d's physical body - that in the resurrection we inherit his body which has no "deficiency of gender" .  Am I understanding you correctly or do I need to better understand what you mean by "one" body?  Do you mean "one" body like in a marriage a man and a woman become "one" flesh or do you mean one body that does not differentiate gender?   Or do we in essence inherit all G-d has in regards to purpose - not physical presents or gender? 

 

I am trying to understand what you are saying to me.  Because I am dyslexic sometimes I interpret things backwards so I have to ask questions to be sure I got your point - I think you are saying we symbolically inherit all of G-d's purpose but I am trying to determine if  your definition of all goes beyond sysmoblism and that it is possible that we can go to the extreme and realize that we actually get everything G-d has - including his gender and his body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are my views on gender?  I think you are misinterpreting what I said. 

 

I believe in gender in the Celestial Kingdom, male and female.   What is wacky about that?

 

I'll grant it may be a misunderstanding. But your views are...well...I put it in another thread...somewhat borg-ish.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share