Life and death

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

We have at least three accounts* of the Creation, and while they don't contradict each other, they are not identical.
* Genesis, Moses, And Abraham. We should also count the Temple presentation.

Except for  a few fanatical types, I can't imagine that people believe the Genesis Account® is a complete and literal version of God's creating.

So, based on the above, the statement that it is not the literal and/full story of what happened a the creation is undeniably accurate.

Lehi

I am not convinced that the creation epoch that is given by revelation in scripture and our temple worship has much to do with what we think of as the origins of the physical elements that comprise our solar system – let alone our vast and amazing universe.  As a simple example of what I am referencing; much of our earth’s core, mantel and curst is comprised of what we call heavy metals.  These elements are manufactured in 3^rd generation stars – stars that are more mature than our current sun.  These elements were likely dispersed by the star generating the elements going super nova.

Without going into all the details, the presents and origins of heavy metals on earth is a scientific conundrum that lacks sufficient theory to explain what we know and observe concerning them.  The religious community has even greater problems trying to explain such things.  Any attempts to explain their “creation” in vastly fantastic or supernatural means contrary to what we see tacking place infinitely and consistently in our observable universe.  To me, such ridiculous explanations of divine creation methods mocks the revelations of G-d’s consistency (the same yesterday, today and tomorrow).

I have spent much of my life researching, studying and trying to understand the science of creation and the divine message of the creation epoch.  The only rational conclusion I have been able to consider is that the revelations of “creation” is not what we think of as creation in scientific or empirical terms.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Traveler said:

This research has me very baffled – I have no idea what the “breath of life” is.  But I find it interesting that it is not associated with an individual (and we tend to think of life in terms of an individual) but the “breath of life” is associated with the male and female.  This gives me that idea that life is not existing just as an individual but may have something to do with things beyond just ourselves existing.

 

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

If you do a word surch on the scriptures you will discover the term used to discribe why Noah gathered animals in two's.  Also the way the word is used in Hebrews it is plural not singular.

The scriptures bring up the condition of life in terms of temporal, spiritual, physical, eternal, mortal, natural, immortal, and in terms of both mind (understanding) and body (moving). The terms “Spirit” and “spirit” are sometimes used interchangeably and can refer to both that which quickens and that which is quickened: the intelligence, the pre-mortal spirit being, glory, the light of Christ, and the Holy Ghost. So we have even in this summary at least a dozen interrelating concepts and moving parts.

So it would seem that the breath of life is associated with God, who quickens His creations, and that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is what makes Him God. John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself…” and of course 1:4, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

Where we are co-eternal with God, we must have life in us as well, but are not able to exercise it fully without our Father leading the way from estate to estate (intelligence to spirit, spirit to probation, probation to kingdom of glory, etc.). I think He quickens us by showing the way and enabling our advancement from estate to estate unto a “fulness.”

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The only rational conclusion I have been able to consider is that the revelations of “creation” is not what we think of as creation in scientific or empirical terms.

Now that's an understatement!

I sometimes think in terms of laws governing the kingdoms. “And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.” The physical laws of our world explain things quite well in my opinion of what has transpired physically since the Fall, which took place (for lack of a better reference point) beyond the cosmic particle horizon.

I don’t think it is possible right now to understand the physical laws governing the other realms mentioned in scripture, such as the terrestrial creation realm or Eden, or the physical laws in the resurrected state and kingdoms of glory, the pre-mortal realms, he translated Zion in heaven, etc. I consider these to be beyond the cosmic particle horizon, both physically and in other senses.

[CV75]

deleted

Edited May 6, 2016 by CV75
slow electrons causing double-post

[tesuji]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am not convinced that the creation epoch that is given by revelation in scripture and our temple worship has much to do with what we think of as the origins of the physical elements that comprise our solar system – let alone our vast and amazing universe. 
...
The Traveler

 

Yes, I tend to agree.

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then I guess it's possible he could just have waived his magic wand and made everything in six days, including putting heavy metals in the earth, laying down the layers in the Grand Canyon (including inserting just-created fossils in the right layers), etc.

But based on what scientists have show us, it's more likely that it happened gradually, and that the Genesis account is not the full picture from a scientific angle.

Science certainly doesn't know all the answers. But I think God wants us to explore our world and use our minds (science), along with having faith.

[tesuji]

Then there's the following idea. I love the idea that this life might be God's version of The Matrix. I'm very skeptical, though. And I also wonder if it would make a bit of difference, from an LDS theology point of view.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

[Edspringer]

About the resurrection of body and spirit, let’s read and ponder some scriptures;

 

Alma 40:3,23, from the Book of Mormon:

 

3 But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection”. mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are manyresurrection3 Behold, he (Christ) bringeth to pass the 

 

23 The soul (spirit) shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame” .(emphasis added)

 

(I strongly recommend the reading of that entire chapter, though).

 

 

Ezekiel 37:1-14, from the Old Testament, in the Bible

 

1 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,

 

 

 

2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

 

 

 

3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest.

 

 

 

4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

 

 

 

5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

 

 

 

6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

 

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.

 

 

 

8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.

 

 

 

9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

 

10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

 

 

 

11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.

 

 

 

12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

 

 

 

13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

 

 

 

14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.

 

 

 

So, I guess it can’t be any clear than that!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Edspringer

[Vort]

3 hours ago, tesuji said:

Then there's the following idea. I love the idea that this life might be God's version of The Matrix. I'm very skeptical, though. And I also wonder if it would make a bit of difference, from an LDS theology point of view.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

The reasoning behind this is both entertaining and vexing. It's obviously wrong, yet good luck formulating a probabilistic argument against it. The argument goes as follows:

If a computer simulation of larger reality is impossible, then we must be in a real universe -- 100% probability. However, if a computer simulation is possible, then a single reality could host any number of simulations -- a billion, a trillion, a googol. In this case, the odds become a billion/trillion/googol to one that we exist in a simulation. So the total probability is P(possibility of simulating a universe) * P(fraction of simulated universes in a real universe). If we assume a modest billion simulations per universe for the second term. then even if we say for the first term that the possibility of simulating a universe is one in a million, it's still overwhelmingly likely (about 99.9999% probability) that we exist in a simulated universe.

My own response to this is not that the first term (probability of simulating a universe) is zero, but that the second term (number of simulated universes that could be hosted in a real universe) is, at best, one. You will not do better at fully simulating the actions of a particle with less than a particle; in all likelihood, it will take many pieces of information, and thus potentially many particles, to do that simulation. So a universe such as ours would likely be able to host no more than a single simulation of itself in any sort of detail.

But you may point out that we don't actually need to simulate the whole universe, just the pieces we live in and see. Just like Truman's "owners" in The Truman Show didn't have to simulate the entire planet, but just the piece that Truman lived in, so it could be with us. Or perhaps our simulated universe uses "quarks", but the "real" host universe uses something much finer and more precise, so that our "reality" is just a rough approximation of "real reality". In such cases, I would argue that our universe is then as "real" as it could possibly be. "Actual reality" is simply an entirely different beast from our reality, so it makes no difference if our reality is a hosted simulation, because it can't exist in any other way.

In a sense, we already believe something like that last paragraph. We believe that the Earth was created (at least in part) in order to act as the footstool of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. The Earth does not exist by accident; it is an intentional creation for our benefit. That gives it a sort of "artificial" status right there. At that point, what difference does it make if the nature of the composite quarks is self-existent matter or electronic/photonic simulation?

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am not convinced that the creation epoch that is given by revelation in scripture and our temple worship has much to do with what we think of as the origins of the physical elements that comprise our solar system – let alone our vast and amazing universe.

Let's take Joseph Smith at his word, that the word translated "day" in the creation accounts does not mean 24 hours or 1,000 years, but "time period".

He also said that the earth was billions of years old (I can't recall how many billions, but it was at least 2, and I believe more than 11). So what you are saying is that the "creation epoch" was unconnected with the reality of the universe. I plead ambiguity in the word. Unless I misunderstand you, this is not a cookie cutter question, and no pre-fab answer is going to work.

We Saints tend to lump ourselves in with Evangelical Protestants when it comes to creations and the origins of man. But the Church has made no official declaration about, say, evolution (except to say there is no official position). We do not claim that the earth was made in 6 days, nor 6,000 years. And while Joseph's multi-billion year statement is not an official position, it is indicative of where a Latter-day Saint could find himself in good company.

Lehi

[Aish HaTorah]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:46 AM, CV75 said:

I think two principles inform this conversation: 1) Things that act (alive) and things that are acted upon (dead)...

 

And then there are those little fellows do not play well with others in the sandbox:  viruses

They tend to play outside the definition box.

[Aish HaTorah]

36 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Let's take Joseph Smith at his word, that the word translated "day" in the creation accounts does not mean 24 hours or 1,000 years, but "time period".

 

I find this fascinating.  Fascinating, that is, that you (LDS) look into root words in scriptural context.  The Hebrew word יום (yom) can, indeed, mean more than a simple 24-hour period.  It may not be the place to delve into a greater discussion on the topic here in this thread, but suffice it to say it is definitely a question of hermeneutics.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Aish HaTorah said:

And then there are those little fellows do not play well with others in the sandbox:  viruses

They tend to play outside the definition box.

Well, I mentioned two scriptural / spiritual principles, not scientific definitions. Read on (and catch up): “…something can be alive in once sense and dead in another.”

Bacteria? Single-celled organisms? Viruses? I propose they are both governed and quickened by the light of Christ (which also governs the physical laws we are able to observe) just as we are, but do not necessarily act or originated in a premortal spirit estate as we did.

[Aish HaTorah]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, I mentioned two scriptural / spiritual principles, not scientific definitions. Read on (and catch up): “…

 

Touché

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Aish HaTorah said:

Touché

Oh, let's go with "olé" LOL... and call it a day (or an epoch)...!

[Traveler]

On 5/6/2016 at 4:01 PM, LeSellers said:

Let's take Joseph Smith at his word, that the word translated "day" in the creation accounts does not mean 24 hours or 1,000 years, but "time period".

He also said that the earth was billions of years old (I can't recall how many billions, but it was at least 2, and I believe more than 11). So what you are saying is that the "creation epoch" was unconnected with the reality of the universe. I plead ambiguity in the word. Unless I misunderstand you, this is not a cookie cutter question, and no pre-fab answer is going to work.

We Saints tend to lump ourselves in with Evangelical Protestants when it comes to creations and the origins of man. But the Church has made no official declaration about, say, evolution (except to say there is no official position). We do not claim that the earth was made in 6 days, nor 6,000 years. And while Joseph's multi-billion year statement is not an official position, it is indicative of where a Latter-day Saint could find himself in good company.

Lehi

Regardless of what time periods you use the sequence doesn't even make sense. For example days (time periods) 3 % 4 are backwards with any rational and honest empirical observation.  And as I said earlier, any attempt to resolve heavy metals in our solar system between scripture and any empirical evidence is rationally impossible.

 

The Traveler