What is the scope of God's creation?


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, everyone

I simply love this topic, for it is one of my favorites in the scriptures. I have engaged myself into a serious study about the creation and sought the understanding the Lord promised to those who would seek Him diligently.

Well, first off (I got this expression from The Traveler), I believe the Lord wants us to understand Him and all that He did and does. But I also believe there’s a path to follow and a price to be paid, and it’s not little.

Second, in the Pearl of Great Price, the Lord states both to Moses and to Abraham very much about the works of His hands. I won’t quote here any verse of scripture from the POGP because I’d rather recommend all of us to seriously and deeply study the books of Moses and of Abraham. I believe that they contain a lot to consider and to learn.

We have so far four accounts of the creation: Genesis, Moses, Abraham and the temple. The complete each other and yet have different features. Considering each separately and put them together will enhance our understanding of the Lord’s cosmos.

I would strongly recommend the talk by Elder Neal A Maxuel called “ Our Creator’s cosmos”. It’s worth reading.  Also I’d recommend the talk by Elder Russell M Nelson called “The Creation”.

By the way, President Nelson, last January, on a devotional for young adults, said when talking about divine law: “Laws are laws.  God’s truth is really true. What God says it’s right is right. What God says it’s wrong is wrong. That’s why it’s imperative that you know God’s laws. They control this universe and multiple others”. Take your own conclusions.

Now, I believe we were given the chance to understand this planet upon which we live and what is surrounding it. The order in the solar system is surely a model to something much greater and has been placed in a way that we could observe it, speculate about it and even pray about it, like Moses did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2017 at 11:06 AM, MrShorty said:

@Eydis I was really surprised by my reaction to your post, and I had to sit on it for a couple of days. My reaction looks something like this. If the raw materials God used to create observable matter are beyond our observation -- how different is this from creation ex nihilo? On the one hand, there is a strong philosophical and theological difference around the question of whether or not God used some pre-existing raw material to create the universe. But, from the point of view of this observer, it seems like I would observe the exact same thing either way.

The problem I have with the "God-outside-the-universe" model is frankly that that is what all the other religions teach. It was that idea that led to the doctrine of spirit as immaterial matter and the flesh (and our fallen state) as corruption. We teach of God as our literal -- LITERAL! -- Father, a MAN of flesh and bone, someone that we can actually aspire to emulate, and ourselves become eternal fathers and mothers. We teach of a premortal life that was actually a conscious existence, and of a postmortal PHYSICAL life, the resurrection being eternal. How nicely the idea of a God who controls the universe as a part of it fits!

Joseph Smith was "crudely literal", in the opinion of many theologians. I love it. When Joseph was asked how to tell apart different types of angels (evil spirits, righteous spirits, and resurrected beings), his answer was, "Offer to shake hands with him." I defy anyone to show me an example of a leader of any other religious sect in the world who would make, or even think of, such a statement. It's unique and absolutely glorious.

So I don't know whether God is "part of this universe" or "outside it", or even if such ideas make any sense. But I'm partial to the crudely literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 6:13 PM, Vort said:

So I don't know whether God is "part of this universe" or "outside it", or even if such ideas make any sense. But I'm partial to the crudely literal.

I find your comment very interesting.  95% of our universe is stuff we are really not even sure is bounded by the dimensional space time that we think defines our universe.  In short, we do not know for sure what is our universe and what is foreign to our universe – just observing what we now can about our universe.  Sometimes it appears to me that many “other” religions make up and say things about G-d as a very flawed method of trying to keep up with some of the new ideas being presented by science.  That in holding to flawed religious traditions are trying to explain G-d and the universe – yet not really understanding much of either.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, I like your thoughts about trying to keep God "relatable" (for lack of a better word). Just to be contrary, the think I dislike about the "God inside the universe" model is that I cannot imagine such a "physical" God (as long as His body is anything at all like mine) existing inside of the singularity before the Big Bang. Granted, my ability to comprehend that environment is severely limited. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about a being somewhat like me existing in and even controlling that environment. Whatever that looks like, it would seem to be well beyond my limited imagination. Of course, if I am co-eternal with God, then I, too, existed in some form in that environment (which, again, is way beyond my limited imagination).

Even Traveler's suggestion that parts of our universe are moving in and out of this dimension is so far beyond my experience that I have a hard time envisioning a being like me that moves in and out of the universe like these strange forms of matter.

Of course, it seems that some, in order to avoid this conflict, will hypothesize an eternal, "steady state" (thought it can't quite be that steady, because we can easily observe that it is currently expanding) universe that was not created by God. God takes some/all/part of this eternally existing universe and organizes it into something. Such a universe is not very compatible with the commonly accepted 21st century cosmologies.

I cannot claim any special knowledge here. What I see in a lot of this is that, no matter what I hypothesize, God is somehow beyond my full comprehension. To accept that He is also relatable to me -- that He is "like" me (in some way that is still mysterious to me) is in intriguing belief to hold on to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 9:57 PM, MrShorty said:

Vort, I like your thoughts about trying to keep God "relatable" (for lack of a better word). Just to be contrary, the think I dislike about the "God inside the universe" model is that I cannot imagine such a "physical" God (as long as His body is anything at all like mine) existing inside of the singularity before the Big Bang. Granted, my ability to comprehend that environment is severely limited. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about a being somewhat like me existing in and even controlling that environment. Whatever that looks like, it would seem to be well beyond my limited imagination. Of course, if I am co-eternal with God, then I, too, existed in some form in that environment (which, again, is way beyond my limited imagination).

Even Traveler's suggestion that parts of our universe are moving in and out of this dimension is so far beyond my experience that I have a hard time envisioning a being like me that moves in and out of the universe like these strange forms of matter.

Of course, it seems that some, in order to avoid this conflict, will hypothesize an eternal, "steady state" (thought it can't quite be that steady, because we can easily observe that it is currently expanding) universe that was not created by God. God takes some/all/part of this eternally existing universe and organizes it into something. Such a universe is not very compatible with the commonly accepted 21st century cosmologies.

I cannot claim any special knowledge here. What I see in a lot of this is that, no matter what I hypothesize, God is somehow beyond my full comprehension. To accept that He is also relatable to me -- that He is "like" me (in some way that is still mysterious to me) is in intriguing belief to hold on to.

 

@MrShortyand @Vort

I will attempt an explanation.  We preserve and understand our existence in this universe with a 3-dimensional space time mapping of what we think to be real.  Our senses and brain organizes our experiences into this 3-dimensional space time so we assume this is the totality of our universe.  But through religious encouragement and our modern revelation we understand that there is something more that we call our spirit and things spiritual that cannot be made to neatly fit into our 3-dimensional space time paradigm.  Our spirit is part of us but we are unable to utilize any of our brain or senses to understand how our spirit operates in this universe we can address with our senses.  We are left to very vague revelations and wild speculation of what we are as a spirit beings having a physical experience.

As we study and experience our universe we have stumbled into things very difficult to explain.  A good example of this difficult to explain stuff is quantum mechanics.  In quantum mechanics, there are what we call quantum anomalies.  For a very short time it appears that “things” pop into our universe from nowhere and then quickly disappear without a trace.   Some call these things random but we can calculate, very accurately their probabilities and predict their occurrences.   I believe an easy way to symbolically and conceptually explain these anomalies – is by attempting to visualize an additional dimension.  I will do this by symbolically looking at a possible (symbolic) universe contained within our own universe but existing in only 2-dimesnions.  In essence we are looking at this 2-dimensional universe displayed on our computer screen.

We can see everything in the 2-dimensional universe.  Nothing blocks anything else as it would something else that is in the 2-dimensional sub universe.  We have great power and advantage from our 3-dimensional place.  For example, we can go immediately to any place in that 2-dimensional universe without having to transverse any part of that 2-dimensional universe.   Because we see and have immediate access to any point in that universe we can see and do things that seem supernatural and impossible to someone that exists entirely in that little universe.

However, we may seem to exist “outside” of that universe – but that is not completely true.  If we did not exist inside that universe we would not be able to experience it or do anything with it.  It is just that there is much more to us and our universe that this little 2-dimensional universe on our computer screen.  Granted that are some flaws and problems with this example – but I offer it as a means to better understand that there is a possibility that we – in our 3-dimensional space time may not see or sense the totality of what is influencing and driving (controlling) our universe.  In fact – our scientific friends have calculated that at least 95% of our universe cannot be accounted for by our sense and measurements. 

I would suggest that we Latter-day Saints (Mormons) understand in part that we are divine intelligences that have been placed in our 3-dimensional universe for a unique experience and that there is within us and our intelligence the ability to see and experience another dimension – or a spiritual dimension if you will.  That we are of the same intelligence of G-d – but that for this unique experience we are flying mostly blind.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:

...the scope or extent of our Father's creation...

It's an interesting topic, I'll provide you with a theorem.

On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:

1) One discussion talked about us "creating planets". Is our Father's/Christ's creation limited to the Earth/Solar system, and everything outside of that is beyond what He created?

No.  I believe that is demonstratably false with scripture

On 3/2/2017 at 10:14 AM, MrShorty said:

2) The scriptures say that God created the Sun, Moon, and stars and placed them in the firmament of heaven. With a couple of notable exceptions (I will come back to them), every star, cluster, nebula, object that we can see naked eye is within our own Milky Way galaxy/"island universe". Is God's creation limited to a single galaxy?

I believe that this is the more logical division.  Scriptural support.

Abraham 3:3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Kolob is declared to be one of the ...governing ones...  It is at the foundation of an organization - and near to where the Father lives.  It belongs to the same order as this world, and by the other information it's clear that it is another planet.  If it is a foundation of an organization of worlds, the largest unit that fits is a Galaxy.  Beyond that unit there is no clear governing order we can discern, at least that I understand.  It is related to rotations, seasons - time, which seem to me to be direct governance - orbits around each other with what we call gravity.  Galaxies do not seem to have distinct interactions that one could potentially declare as clear governance.  They probably exist, but they are very indistinct and a poor fit for direct governance.

Thus I find it quite a reasonable idea that a Galaxy represents a familial creation subdivision - and the milky way represents the creation done under our Father.

Supporting evidence.  The center of the galaxy is veiled from us.  One form of a 'veil'.  We are unable to number his worlds, which we cannot no matter what we build or how many computers we might dedicate to the task because we cannot see on the other side of the center.  Our best estimates are generally little better than an order of magnitude ball-park style numbering.  So, we indeed, cannot "count' creation.  The sun, the moon, and the stars we can see all reside in this galaxy.  While we can see other galaxies, we cannot discern individual bodies there so they should not be considered stars.  Our sun is in the outer 3rd from the center, that may indicate that we are in the 3rd of 3 kingdoms - Telestial, that fits.  When you look at pictures of galaxies, there tends to be a quite distinct core (Celestial kingdom), followed by two fairly distinct areas moving outward and often marked by composition and color (Terrestial/Telestial).  This fits the order of creation as we understand it.  Attached an illustrative example.

This does not constitute a proof, but a possibility to think on.

Image-of-Spiral-Galaxy-NGC-6814-600x600.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@backblast: thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it is an intriguing possibility. Some observations/questions:

1) In some ways I am not surprised that scripture would support this kind of view. Is this because this view is more "true" (as a 21st century Mormon might understand it) or is it because the worldviews of the authors of scripture had no concept of "island universe" like we do? Certainly ancient scripture (possible geocentric models) did not have a concept of "island universe". Even Joseph Smith in the 19th century probably did not have a solid understanding of a cosmos filled with "island universes" (Wikipedia indicates that the concept of "island universe" gets started in the 18th century but doesn't gain a solid footing until the 20th century). Is scriptural agreement with the idea of a galaxy as a "familial creation subdivision" due to this being "true", or because God tailored his explanation to the single universe worldviews of those he was giving revelation to.

2) The idea of galactic structure as a basis for "divisions" between us and God (and telestial from terrestrial from celestial) is intriguing. Certainly this applies nicely to a structured spiral galaxy like ours (and the one in your picture -- do you happen to know which galaxy that is? M74 was the closest match I looked at). What are the implications for an ellipsoidal galaxy or others that have much less structure? Different spiritual rules in those creations that do not lead to such spiritual division?

3)

14 hours ago, BackBlast said:

 If it is a foundation of an organization of worlds, the largest unit that fits is a Galaxy.  Beyond that unit there is no clear governing order we can discern, at least that I understand.

I'm not sure that this is true. We can easily see that the Andromeda galaxy is surrounded by other galaxies that are tied to it (M32, M110 for example). Further out, we talk about clusters of galaxies that seem bound together (our local group, or the Virgo cluster for example) by gravity. How do you see these clusters in this part of the model?

4) What are the implications for "interacting galaxies". The Whirlpool galaxy (M51) is interacting with its companion galaxy. There are a couple of galaxies that we have identified that are currently being swallowed up into our own Milky Way galaxy (such as the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroid galaxy. If each galaxy represents a separate familial creation, what does it suggest about these colliding galaxies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@backblast: thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it is an intriguing possibility. Some observations/questions:

1) In some ways I am not surprised that scripture would support this kind of view. Is this because this view is more "true" (as a 21st century Mormon might understand it) or is it because the worldviews of the authors of scripture had no concept of "island universe" like we do? Certainly ancient scripture (possible geocentric models) did not have a concept of "island universe". Even Joseph Smith in the 19th century probably did not have a solid understanding of a cosmos filled with "island universes" (Wikipedia indicates that the concept of "island universe" gets started in the 18th century but doesn't gain a solid footing until the 20th century). Is scriptural agreement with the idea of a galaxy as a "familial creation subdivision" due to this being "true", or because God tailored his explanation to the single universe worldviews of those he was giving revelation to.

There is something to that, but I also tend to believe that the words will remain true regardless of the conceptual notions of the people receiving the revelations.  God does speak to the understanding of men.

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

2) The idea of galactic structure as a basis for "divisions" between us and God (and telestial from terrestrial from celestial) is intriguing. Certainly this applies nicely to a structured spiral galaxy like ours (and the one in your picture -- do you happen to know which galaxy that is? M74 was the closest match I looked at). What are the implications for an ellipsoidal galaxy or others that have much less structure? Different spiritual rules in those creations that do not lead to such spiritual division?

NGC-6814.  I try to preserve the name of whatever image I grab to help identify it if desired.  

I've looked at many.  Ellipsoids tend to follow the same pattern IMHO.  Though depending on how the photo was taken the Terrestial may be difficult to distinguish from the Telestial.  When only using a narrow band of emissions it's more difficult.  The core is always easy to distinguish.  I find it easiest on a top down view with full visible light spectrum available.  Some other commonalities are the dust cloud, "veil", around the core.  And there is also one found at the outskirts beyond the Telestial sphere, "outter darkness" where one would be veiled from the light, or "glory" from your own galaxy.

 

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

3)

I'm not sure that this is true. We can easily see that the Andromeda galaxy is surrounded by other galaxies that are tied to it (M32, M110 for example). Further out, we talk about clusters of galaxies that seem bound together (our local group, or the Virgo cluster for example) by gravity. How do you see these clusters in this part of the model?

4) What are the implications for "interacting galaxies". The Whirlpool galaxy (M51) is interacting with its companion galaxy. There are a couple of galaxies that we have identified that are currently being swallowed up into our own Milky Way galaxy (such as the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroid galaxy. If each galaxy represents a separate familial creation, what does it suggest about these colliding galaxies?

This is highly speculative.  There will be linkages for some, yes, as a new family forms I would think that there is a development process.  Globular clusters to new infant galaxies - they seem to be built from the core outward.  I think there are also those who choose to remain close neighbors.  There is as much variance as individuality found in The Family.  Like people here who choose different houses, neighborhoods, and communities.

PIA04213_hires.jpg

m102_hubble2.jpg

elliptical.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alternative view on the Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial kingdoms is that the celestial is the very center bright core.  Then the immediate area surrounding the core is a Terrestial zone, where populated worlds live and the light received is directly from the core rather than a local sun and no local stars appear to be found.  IE, they live in His presence.  After that is the veil dust cloud.  Then the remaining area are varying degrees of the Telestial kingdom.  Some of which have distinct glory zones, but require local suns for light as they are removed from the throne of God.

Image-of-Spiral-Galaxy-NGC-6814-600x600.jpg

Edited by BackBlast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BackBlast said:

It's an interesting topic, I'll provide you with a theorem.

No.  I believe that is demonstratably false with scripture

I believe that this is the more logical division.  Scriptural support.

Abraham 3:3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Kolob is declared to be one of the ...governing ones...  It is at the foundation of an organization - and near to where the Father lives.  It belongs to the same order as this world, and by the other information it's clear that it is another planet.  If it is a foundation of an organization of worlds, the largest unit that fits is a Galaxy.  Beyond that unit there is no clear governing order we can discern, at least that I understand.  It is related to rotations, seasons - time, which seem to me to be direct governance - orbits around each other with what we call gravity.  Galaxies do not seem to have distinct interactions that one could potentially declare as clear governance.  They probably exist, but they are very indistinct and a poor fit for direct governance.

Thus I find it quite a reasonable idea that a Galaxy represents a familial creation subdivision - and the milky way represents the creation done under our Father.

Supporting evidence.  The center of the galaxy is veiled from us.  One form of a 'veil'.  We are unable to number his worlds, which we cannot no matter what we build or how many computers we might dedicate to the task because we cannot see on the other side of the center.  Our best estimates are generally little better than an order of magnitude ball-park style numbering.  So, we indeed, cannot "count' creation.  The sun, the moon, and the stars we can see all reside in this galaxy.  While we can see other galaxies, we cannot discern individual bodies there so they should not be considered stars.  Our sun is in the outer 3rd from the center, that may indicate that we are in the 3rd of 3 kingdoms - Telestial, that fits.  When you look at pictures of galaxies, there tends to be a quite distinct core (Celestial kingdom), followed by two fairly distinct areas moving outward and often marked by composition and color (Terrestial/Telestial).  This fits the order of creation as we understand it.  Attached an illustrative example.

This does not constitute a proof, but a possibility to think on.

Image-of-Spiral-Galaxy-NGC-6814-600x600.jpg

 

The Hubble telescope has opened up a very different view of the universe.  But even before the creation of the Hubble telescope scientist have known that gravity cannot explain the formation of our galaxy – it is simply too big.  In addition, with the added information from the Hubble telescope we now know our galaxy is part of a super cluster that has been named Laniakea.  This super cluster is bigger than what we understood the universe to be just 100 years ago (Big Bang theory era).  Our supercluster is comprised of more mass than what could have been contained in a Big Bang and there are hundreds of thousands of these superclusters.  With all we know of physics and science we can only explain about 5% of what we now know of our universe.

The scriptures tell us that G-d created the “heavens” – note that the plural of heaven is used.  What is meant by a heaven is speculation – at best.  It is my personal thought that the account of creation in scripture is linked directly to the divine plan of salvation through symbolism and if anything can be found to the actual origin of our vast universe – it is a coincidence.   If you believe that the scriptural creation account has any empirical bearing on things – please explain to me how it was that the fruit trees of earth were producing fruit before there was a sun shining in its heavens?  (Days 3 & 4 of the scripture creation account).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my personal thought that the account of creation in scripture is linked directly to the divine plan of salvation through symbolism and if anything can be found to the actual origin of our vast universe – it is a coincidence.   If you believe that the scriptural creation account has any empirical bearing on things – please explain to me how it was that the fruit trees of earth were producing fruit before there was a sun shining in its heavens?  (Days 3 & 4 of the scripture creation account).

There was light before the sun was made (day 1).  With another source of light, fruit trees can create and produce fruit with or without a sun.  This order, I believe, supports the plausibility of of sun-less worlds closer to the throne of God and I would consider this positive evidence of the general theorem, rather than negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BackBlast said:

There was light before the sun was made (day 1).  With another source of light, fruit trees can create and produce fruit with or without a sun.  This order, I believe, supports the plausibility of of sun-less worlds closer to the throne of God and I would consider this positive evidence of the general theorem, rather than negative.

 

I am not aware of any scriptural or other divine revelation to support your speculations – in fact there is modern revelation (LDS) that contradicts your proposal.  Also, there is no empirical evidence to support your suggestion.  It is a personal preference of mine (or prejudice if you will) to reject speculations that have no divine reason (or purpose) nor empirical possibility.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am not aware of any scriptural or other divine revelation to support your speculations – in fact there is modern revelation (LDS) that contradicts your proposal.  Also, there is no empirical evidence to support your suggestion.  It is a personal preference of mine (or prejudice if you will) to reject speculations that have no divine reason (or purpose) nor empirical possibility.

What exactly did this have to do with my answer to your question?  It seems like a general answer to the speculation.  And if you don't like speculative threads, why do you participate in them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@BackBlast,

To encourage those involved to consider the evidence that G-d provides – both scriptural and empirical – when forming opinions.  Or at least admit that their opinions are pure speculation.  I love to ask questions in an effort to try and see if I can come to the same or similar conclusion if I consider the same evidence someone else is using.

I like to challenge Ideas as well as express my own.  Thank you very much for reading my posts and responding – your questions will always be welcome to me.  You may find it interesting that our little solar system has an abundance of heavy metals that can only come from a star passing through the phase of a super nova – but there is a lot of conflicting evidence of how such an nearby event would affect the evolution of our solar system – I have some ideas but none that work very well with the evidence – so I am very interested in other ideas – especially those that are well researched and thought out.  Most especially those that have found evidences of things that I have missed.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

@BackBlast,

To encourage those involved to consider the evidence that G-d provides – both scriptural and empirical – when forming opinions.  Or at least admit that their opinions are pure speculation.  I love to ask questions in an effort to try and see if I can come to the same or similar conclusion if I consider the same evidence someone else is using.

My speculation is so labeled, though I believe there to be some basis there.  If you wish to dismiss it in word, do me the courtesy of being specific and citing your implied sources and not saying things like "no scriptural basis" when there are scriptures quoted by me in the thread.  If you believe I am wrong, show me why.  Nebulous hand wave dismissals I find disrespectful.  And this is all you have provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BackBlast said:

My speculation is so labeled, though I believe there to be some basis there.  If you wish to dismiss it in word, do me the courtesy of being specific and citing your implied sources and not saying things like "no scriptural basis" when there are scriptures quoted by me in the thread.  If you believe I am wrong, show me why.  Nebulous hand wave dismissals I find disrespectful.  And this is all you have provided.

 

Okay – I will try my best.  I mentioned that the scriptural account of the creation has a possible flaw if we try to understand the account directly related to the actual origins of our Universe (solar system?).  The reference I gave was to days 3 and 4 of the creation account concerning fruit trees producing fruit and grass going to seed before the sun and moon were created.  You responded as follows:

Quote

There was light before the sun was made (day 1).  With another source of light, fruit trees can create and produce fruit with or without a sun.  This order, I believe, supports the plausibility of of sun-less worlds closer to the throne of God and I would consider this positive evidence of the general theorem, rather than negative.

If this is the totality of your understanding and the limit of the evidence you are willing to consider I am not certain how to respond – except to say that there is revelation that directly contradicts what you are implying.  In regards to such revelation, I would ask two questions.  First – Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  It does not show in your profile so I am not sure.  Second – do you now or have you ever had a Temple recommend.

Can you identify or reference the “light before the sun”?  If you can – would you do so to help me understand what you are talking about?  I have wondered if the light created on the first day is symbolic of “divine” light and truth by which light and truth; we can understand the goodness of G-d and his great Plan of Salvation.

 

Thanks

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Okay – I will try my best.  I mentioned that the scriptural account of the creation has a possible flaw if we try to understand the account directly related to the actual origins of our Universe (solar system?).  The reference I gave was to days 3 and 4 of the creation account concerning fruit trees producing fruit and grass going to seed before the sun and moon were created.  You responded as follows:

If this is the totality of your understanding and the limit of the evidence you are willing to consider I am not certain how to respond – except to say that there is revelation that directly contradicts what you are implying.  In regards to such revelation, I would ask two questions.  First – Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  It does not show in your profile so I am not sure.  Second – do you now or have you ever had a Temple recommend.

I am LDS, endowed.  I quoted PGP previously.  You are welcome to bring what evidence you may, or don't, it's completely up to you how much or how little participation you would like to provide.  Just please don't hand wave completely unsupported positions as if it is actual participation or evidence of anything.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Can you identify or reference the “light before the sun”?  If you can – would you do so to help me understand what you are talking about?  I have wondered if the light created on the first day is symbolic of “divine” light and truth by which light and truth; we can understand the goodness of G-d and his great Plan of Salvation.

Moses 2:

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

4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.

I'm not sure how you can think of it as a symbolic divine light when it is separating day from night which means it at least shares a type with the light we have and know presently.  The source of this light is clearly not our sun, and could certainly support trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BackBlast said:

I'm not sure how you can think of it as a symbolic divine light when it is separating day from night which means it at least shares a type with the light we have and know presently.  The source of this light is clearly not our sun, and could certainly support trees.

It is an intriguing idea, and I can certainly undertake this as a thought experiment. But the main thing that, for me, pushes this into the realm of "symbolic divine light" is that it seems so completely and utterly foreign to what we observe in the natural universe.

1) If the scriptural creation accounts are accurate, the creation of this light precedes the creation of the sun and stars. I am not knowledgeable in all of astronomy and astrophysics, but, to my knowledge, all or almost all light (except maybe for the "background radiation" left over from the big bang) originates in the nuclear reactions of stars.

2) If this light was the fuel for plant growth prior to creation of the sun, then the earth must have been within some kind of "Goldilocks" zone relative to the source of that light. Obviously, this light source is no longer nearby. How could it have once been close enough to support plant growth, but not leave some other evidence of its existence behind (perturbations of planets' orbits)? What sort of object was it (again, a star is the type of object that "fits" in with what we observe)?

If this light source was real and existed before the sun and the plants also existed before the sun, then whatever this light source is seems to be something just too far removed from experience to be understood as a real, physical light.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BackBlast said:

I am LDS, endowed.  I quoted PGP previously.  You are welcome to bring what evidence you may, or don't, it's completely up to you how much or how little participation you would like to provide.  Just please don't hand wave completely unsupported positions as if it is actual participation or evidence of anything.

May I make a little suggestion to someone endowed?  The next time you attend the temple - pay very close attention.  Especially in regards to the question of what takes place on days 3 and 4 of creation.  Now you have a reason to attend the temple and listen very carefully to something you may not have noticed before.  :)

For all that are interested in a possible symbolism for the creation of light and that light must needs be separated from darkness (which separation; from an empirical sense of light is kind of unnecessary).  For those that understand the use of the ancient Hebrew poetic form called a Chiasm – I would point out that the first symbolism of a Chiasm is a reference to the final symbolism.   A structure that follows – the beginning (Alfa) with the end (Omega) or the first shall be last and the last shall be first.  With this thought – the first part of the great Plan of Salvation is the creation and separation of light – the last is what we call the “Final Judgment”.   Could there be a connection?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The pearl of great price rules out the Milky Way as the extent of the Father's creation. 

"And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still;" - Moses 7:30

I googled (scientific) how many grains of sand there are on the earth. The search rendered 700,500,000,000,000,000,000 (seven quadrillion five quintillion) grains of sand on the earth (and that's just sand, not all particles of he earth.)

I also googled (scientific) how many stars there are in the Milky Way galaxy. Estimates range from 100 to 400 billion stars, while highest estimates are at 1 trillion.  There's 1000 trillion's in one quadrillion (according to the converter I used, and I'm not sure which quadrillion it used.)

Now, I don't know if Enoch had Genesis cosmology in mind when he made this statement or if he imagined the earth as we do. But I think he knows how small a particle is and that there are a lot of particles that make up the "earth."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I also googled (scientific) how many stars there are in the Milky Way galaxy. Estimates range from 100 to 400 billion stars, while highest estimates are at 1 trillion.  There's 1000 trillion's in one quadrillion (according to the converter I used, and I'm not sure which quadrillion it used.)

It's eye-opening to consider that there appear to be more galaxies of Milky Way size or larger than there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

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