Seek

First Vision; Second Personage: Heavenly Mother?

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Seek said:

Trinitarianism asserts that God has three faces by which a person may recognize him; three personas.  And so, we can (1) peer into the heavens, at the mysterious Lord, controlling the cosmos; all the while (2) standing in the very presence of Christ; all the while (3) feeling a burning in the heart —of love—that is the Lord’s Spirit.  Three impressions in a single moment — three personas (masks), all of whom share a single nature:  Love.  The persona that is the Father impresses upon the mind; the persona that is the Son impresses upon the body; and the persona that is the Spirit impresses upon the soul.  Each of these impressions is unique, but, together, they are being applied on us with one, downward press.

 

From a Trinitarian perspective, one should not desire to become a mysterious lord, controlling a cosmos; nor should one desire to become a messiah.  One should only desire to become a holy soul.  

We become like the Father in the sense that, our heart comes to burn with the same fire and spirit as his own.  We become like the Father in the ways that matter... here, in this life.

Is truth mysterious or understandable?  Again as a scientist I reject the notion of the unknowable truth - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is an excuse of ignorance and mental laziness.  It is the labyrinth for mediocrity.   The only reason that something is mysterious is because we do not understand it.  The whole notion of religion is that we may better understand G-d - thus if one possesses logic - a religion that makes G-d mysterious is impracticable and diminished use.  It is no surprise that anyone trained in logic and reason rejects the notion of a mysterious G-d as the answer to the existence of the universe.  I call this the G-d of the gaps - the notion that some can only worship what they in ignorance cannot understand.  But the great problem is that the more we learn of the universe the more "gaps" diminish and the less "powerful" a mysterious G-d becomes.  This is the very reason there exist conflict between science and some religions.  The more we learn truth, the more brilliantly truth will shine - likewise the more ignorant we are of things the more truth is obscured and thus seems dark and mysterious.  

A real Christian realizes that man was created to "have dominion" over what G-d has created.  It is impossible to have dominion over things of which someone is ignorant.  Counterfeit religion is stuck in the notion of doctrine.  Isaiah warned Israel that people are turned away from G-d by #1. Transgressing the Law,  #2. Changing the Ordinances and #3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  Isaiah also told king Ahaz - that the reason they he did not understand is because he was not loyal to G-d - concerning the law, ordinances and everlasting covenant.  Jesus also taught that if we follow divine direction (keep the Law, submit to  the Ordinances and keep the Everlasting Covenant) that we will know the truth and the truth will make us free.  Please note that we cannot know the truth if it is mysterious to us or that we believe it so.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 10:31 AM, Traveler said:

As a scientist I have often wondered if what we are taught of spirit in a religious sense is somewhat dimensional as also what we understand as physical or flesh.  That we mortals, here on earth, are experiencing for a period a interdimensional intersection of spiritual dimension with this universe dimensional space-time.  If such was the case - to any degree - then it would be necessary for G-d, in order to be G-d, to not be limited only to the spiritual dimensions.  As a physicist I am well aware that our understanding of the laws and principles that govern our space-time is insufficient and can only account for 5% of what we know of our universe.  In short - I suggest that you do not sell out so quickly of that which is physical when we know so very little of it.

I addressed, in part, the means by which a all powerful G-d could "increase".   I am not sure if you grasp the concept of becoming "one" with G-d.  In the scriptural account of creation we are told through revelation that man is created in the "image" and "likeness" of G-d.  The ancient Hebrew from which this is translated into English indicates that man is a "model" or "replica" of G-d.  This would mean that creation has a purpose.  A purpose that is not just a game played by G-d nor a meaningless construction of stuff without actual value.  But that G-d is in the process of replication. 

If you understand much of fractals as defined in Chaos theory as an explanation of complex systems - one can realize that microstructure is replicated in the macro structure.   And indeed we see a commonality of replication in quantum physics and the isotropic nature of the universe.  And the same exists in all living things.  That the very structure of the most simple protozoa is replicated again and again in all organisms regardless of their complexity - at least all that we know of.  Why then assume that the image and likeness of the creator (Father and Mother) are so different?

A major reservation of mine, concerning the doctrine of exaltation, is that we do not know God to be an exalted man, presently.  He does not come down and speak with us and then ascend elsewhere.  He is spirit to us, here and now.  So when any prophet promises me that things will be different at the Resurrection, I am naturally cautious.  For the Resurrection is supposed to be a restoration, unto the way that things ought to have been:  the New Creation. 

A prime example, as to why we must be cautious when considering whether scenarios of the afterlife are actually true, is Mohammed.  Here is a man who sold to the poor the idea of an eternal pleasure garden, so that he could raise an army, and expand the empire that called him a prophet.

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

Is truth mysterious or understandable?  Again as a scientist I reject the notion of the unknowable truth - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is an excuse of ignorance and mental laziness.  It is the labyrinth for mediocrity.   The only reason that something is mysterious is because we do not understand it.  The whole notion of religion is that we may better understand G-d - thus if one possesses logic - a religion that makes G-d mysterious is impracticable and diminished use.  It is no surprise that anyone trained in logic and reason rejects the notion of a mysterious G-d as the answer to the existence of the universe.  I call this the G-d of the gaps - the notion that some can only worship what they in ignorance cannot understand.  But the great problem is that the more we learn of the universe the more "gaps" diminish and the less "powerful" a mysterious G-d becomes.  This is the very reason there exist conflict between science and some religions.  The more we learn truth, the more brilliantly truth will shine - likewise the more ignorant we are of things the more truth is obscured and thus seems dark and mysterious.  

A real Christian realizes that man was created to "have dominion" over what G-d has created.  It is impossible to have dominion over things of which someone is ignorant.  Counterfeit religion is stuck in the notion of doctrine.  Isaiah warned Israel that people are turned away from G-d by #1. Transgressing the Law,  #2. Changing the Ordinances and #3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  Isaiah also told king Ahaz - that the reason they he did not understand is because he was not loyal to G-d - concerning the law, ordinances and everlasting covenant.  Jesus also taught that if we follow divine direction (keep the Law, submit to  the Ordinances and keep the Everlasting Covenant) that we will know the truth and the truth will make us free.  Please note that we cannot know the truth if it is mysterious to us or that we believe it so.

Mysterious.... For mystery demands humility.

Moreover, when the physical nature of God is concluded to be eternally unfathomable by the believer, it then becomes the aim of the believer to perceive the truth which is contained in the spiritual nature of God; and because the Spirit of God is perfect love and grace unto our eyes, we are thus afforded the means to become reborn in spirit; acquiring a perfect, loving and graceful disposition.  In other words, we acquire God's disposition because we happen to ponder the one side of the truth and not the other.

I would imagine that if Jesus met an atheist physicist time-traveler in Galilee, he would be unable to carry on a conversation in physics.  But if the physicist constructed a piece of technology—based upon the vast understanding he has about the physical world—which provided some benefit to the locals, Jesus would exceed the physicist and provide an even greater benefit to the locals, despite his ignorance of the truth that lies in physics.  This is the truth and power of faith and ignorance, IMHO.  A man who is full of faith is lowly, and yet he is verily a god, performing miracles through the presence of the Holy Spirit within him. 

I understand the concept of having dominion, or reigning with Christ to mean something quite different.  Through the Holy Spirit, we have the power and dominion to transgress the physical side of the world and the laws that govern it, for the purpose of sustaining the powerless creatures who are incapable of faith, such as the animals which are beset by the rapacious brutality of evil.

Edited by Seek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 6:09 PM, Vort said:

Nope.

What do you mean? This is exactly what you have done. You have accepted a Trinitarian view of God and then tried to shoehorn the gospel as taught by the Restored Church into that view.

Your statement is non sequitur. Far more concerning is that you seem not to care to learn what others have to teach, but merely to continue asserting your beliefs and trying to force a harmony between those false preconceptions and the revealed truths of God.

It won't work, Seek. If you truly are a humble seeker, drop the preconceptions and really open your heart. If you can't do that, you should at least drop the pretense of being open-minded.

You make a valid point.  So please excuse me, if I offended you at all.  

You see, my approach to this topic is rooted in certain conclusions that I have reached, after researching the history of the Church and examining certain documents.  It was my desire to speak with a number of you about these conclusions, but in another forum, in a closed setting perhaps; yet it seems that I have been gradually transitioning the conversation to that end.  My apologies. 

It would not be appropriate for me to bring up the root of my approach, here, as some might deem the conversation offensive.  And indeed, for some, it would be.  I do not wish to disturb the faith of someone who is in genuine need.

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such concept as "Heavenly Mother" in the revelations. I see an increasingly prevalent trend in the church wherein individuals try and apply feminist theory to Church culture. I think this is a mistake. The church and the kingdom of God are Patriarchal, this is not merely cultural and cannot simply be changed. Males are government and stability, this is their role, this is the Father's role. In eternity, the Priesthood is the tool by which men fulfill this purpose. In mortality, the priesthood is the school through which men learn to meet this role. Women have no need to hold this priesthood, they have no use for it. This role is neither superior, nor inferior to the role of women, it is distinct and different therefrom, just as theirs is from men's.

We begin to have issues when we apply the critiques of feminism to our Church. Feminism has to do with what is very much an earthly and provincial power struggle and has nothing to do whatever with the organization of heaven. And it's quite shocking that many of us don't have the wherewithal to understand this discrepancy. But rather naively and ignorantly adopt that which is pleasing to the ego but is all together contradictory.

I find the use of the term "Heavenly Mother" to be offensive. As though it is somehow analogous to the Eternal God. Envisioning new beings beyond which the Father has chosen to reveal is indicative of the pride of our day.

Edited by LePeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 7:13 PM, Seek said:

A major reservation of mine, concerning the doctrine of exaltation, is that we do not know God to be an exalted man, presently.  He does not come down and speak with us and then ascend elsewhere.  He is spirit to us, here and now.  So when any prophet promises me that things will be different at the Resurrection, I am naturally cautious.  For the Resurrection is supposed to be a restoration, unto the way that things ought to have been:  the New Creation. 

A prime example, as to why we must be cautious when considering whether scenarios of the afterlife are actually true, is Mohammed.  Here is a man who sold to the poor the idea of an eternal pleasure garden, so that he could raise an army, and expand the empire that called him a prophet.

Greetings again @Seek:

Discussing a "after life" is problematic because there is no empirical evidence that such even exist.  Even the possibility is an exercise in speculation or as some in the religious community label such as "faith".  As I personally contemplate the notion, I think that there must be some commonality with what an individual is in life and also is in the next-life.  Even if we think or believe that in the next life we will be immortal there must be some common element that parallels death.  If not - then both death and overcoming death is irrelevant.  And if death is irrelevant then religion and faith in G-d - or for that matter anything (including life) has no meaning or purpose and - is nothing more than a temporary and meaningless anomaly. 

Thus the principles that are true in life will be true in any possible next life, likewise whatever is false and a lie in life is false and a lie in the next life - and so on.  It appears to me that this is the principle point you are trying to make by being skeptical of certain notions of the next life.   But then, for me - your logic goes completely off the rails when you demand that a exalted man cannot know, understand or deal intelligently with G-d - which I understand as being "one" with G-d and Jesus Christ (as per John 17).  And this brings me to the next part of your post:

Quote

Mysterious.... For mystery demands humility.

Moreover, when the physical nature of God is concluded to be eternally unfathomable by the believer, it then becomes the aim of the believer to perceive the truth which is contained in the spiritual nature of God; and because the Spirit of God is perfect love and grace unto our eyes, we are thus afforded the means to become reborn in spirit; acquiring a perfect, loving and graceful disposition.  In other words, we acquire God's disposition because we happen to ponder the one side of the truth and not the other.

I would imagine that if Jesus met an atheist physicist time-traveler in Galilee, he would be unable to carry on a conversation in physics.  But if the physicist constructed a piece of technology—based upon the vast understanding he has about the physical world—which provided some benefit to the locals, Jesus would exceed the physicist and provide an even greater benefit to the locals, despite his ignorance of the truth that lies in physics.  This is the truth and power of faith and ignorance, IMHO.  A man who is full of faith is lowly, and yet he is verily a god, performing miracles through the presence of the Holy Spirit within him. 

I understand the concept of having dominion, or reigning with Christ to mean something quite different.  Through the Holy Spirit, we have the power and dominion to transgress the physical side of the world and the laws that govern it, for the purpose of sustaining the powerless creatures who are incapable of faith, such as the animals which are beset by the rapacious brutality of evil.

Lets begin with the statement: "Mysterious.... For mystery demands humility."  I hope that you understand the principle of logic concerning definitive statements (and that your statement is a definitive statement - that if a single contrary example exists, that the contrary example will entirely disproves the premise.  This means that if there is any example where knowledge and understanding produces humility - that such disproves your initial premise - which would render whatever logic based in the premise; as false - even if there are any seemingly beneficial conclusions.  With this in mind - I present to you - for your consideration - Jesus Christ.  Of anyone that has walked this planet - Jesus possessed the greatest knowledge and understanding of G-d and he is also the most humble of all.  So if we agree that Jesus does possess the greatest knowledge and understanding of G-d and yet was the most humble - then there is no other conclusion possible except that your initial premise is false.  If there is any other possibly - I would gladly consider whatever "knowledge and understanding" I have missed.  But be careful because there is a logical conundrum in this discussion that would demonstrate perhaps; that possessing such knowledge would require you (or anyone else with such knowledge) to be less humble than me????

I would make another observation based in my life experiences:  That is the belief that knowledge and understanding is evil and contrary to G-d's intended destiny of man and prohibits the desired virtue - humility.  I am of the notion that the opposite is true - that truth and the knowledge and understanding of truth; is the essence of humility.  That there must be some misunderstanding of a truth - even to the point of believing one or more untruths  - that creates or results in pride which is the opposite of humility.   Thus the pursuit to make any knowledge of truth to be mysterious - is an act of evil with intent to glamorize ignorance (darkness) and the very essence of pride.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Greetings again @Seek:

Greetings to you, too.  Considering how this conversation might be quite tense at times, I would like to offer my sincerest ἀγάπη.  The way I see things, we are two early Christians of the first century, arguing about the finer points of a truth; but subjects of Christ, nonetheless.  Please do not think that I wish to mock you; quite the contrary.  I feel that I must, figuratively speaking... take the brigantine to her limits, to find out the truth in what she is capable of — the conversation, that is.

 

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thus the principles that are true in life will be true in any possible next life, likewise whatever is false and a lie in life is false and a lie in the next life - and so on.  It appears to me that this is the principle point you are trying to make by being skeptical of certain notions of the next life. 

Yes, that is the point which I was trying to make. 

That is the premise of Matthew 18:18, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and so whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." 

In a very real sense, this life is Judgment Day.  Resolution happens here, now.

 

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

But then, for me - your logic goes completely off the rails when you demand that a exalted man cannot know, understand or deal intelligently with G-d - which I understand as being "one" with G-d and Jesus Christ (as per John 17).  And this brings me to the next part of your post:

One deals with Jesus Christ.  This is why Paul said that Jesus is the image of the invisible God; because Jesus is the physical impression of God upon us; that persona of God which one knows, understands and intellectually interacts with, on the same level so to speak.  Exalted, sanctified men worship Christ as the Father, and they pray with Jesus (who is the eldest of the brethren) to the Father.  I fail to see a breakdown in logic here — This is in complete harmony with the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel. 

 

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Lets begin with the statement: "Mysterious.... For mystery demands humility."  I hope that you understand the principle of logic concerning definitive statements (and that your statement is a definitive statement - that if a single contrary example exists, that the contrary example will entirely disproves the premise.  This means that if there is any example where knowledge and understanding produces humility - that such disproves your initial premise - which would render whatever logic based in the premise; as false - even if there are any seemingly beneficial conclusions.  With this in mind - I present to you - for your consideration - Jesus Christ.  Of anyone that has walked this planet - Jesus possessed the greatest knowledge and understanding of G-d and he is also the most humble of all.  So if we agree that Jesus does possess the greatest knowledge and understanding of G-d and yet was the most humble - then there is no other conclusion possible except that your initial premise is false.  If there is any other possibly - I would gladly consider whatever "knowledge and understanding" I have missed.  But be careful because there is a logical conundrum in this discussion that would demonstrate perhaps; that possessing such knowledge would require you (or anyone else with such knowledge) to be less humble than me????

Holding the notion of an eternal, transcendental God requires us to be eternally humble.  There is a mystery in the role of the parent, that—as a child under their care and charge—one never comes to understand; and when we do come to understand, we cease to be under their care and charge.  Moreover, there is not a single passage in the Bible where the prophets have explicitly revealed to us that we could opt out of God’s care and charge, at any point during our eternal existence.  Hence, the mysterious, transcendental notion itself is what creates the humility, and sustains it. 

 

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thus the pursuit to make any knowledge of truth to be mysterious - is an act of evil with intent to glamorize ignorance (darkness) and the very essence of pride.

Secret combinations, for example?

 

Edited by Seek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seek said:

Greetings to you, too.  Considering how this conversation might be quite tense at times, I would like to offer my sincerest ἀγάπη.  The way I see things, we are two early Christians of the first century, arguing about the finer points of a truth; but subjects of Christ, nonetheless.  Please do not think that I wish to mock you; quite the contrary.  I feel that I must, figuratively speaking... take the brigantine to her limits, to find out the truth in what she is capable of — the conversation, that is.

So far we have discussed doctrine and not personal traits.  I see no problem.  A couple of thoughts.  Isaiah listed 3 things that turn us away from G-d.  I had posted these previously.  #1. Transgressing the Law.  #2. Changing the Ordinances.  And #3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  In my mind doctrine is only important if it infringes on the 3 items listed.  Second thought is that one seldom learns anything conversing with someone with whom they agree.

Quote

Yes, that is the point which I was trying to make. 

That is the premise of Matthew 18:18, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and so whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." 

In a very real sense, this life is Judgment Day.  Resolution happens here, now.

 

This scripture is a specific declaration to Peter.  It is why early Christian depictions of Peter show him holding keys and where some Christians think of Peter as the keeper of the gate to heaven (anciently the role of Mot in Paganism - such as the worship of Baal)  But along with Ecc 1:9-10 also indicate ideological "links" between heaven and mortal earth. 

As a side note - I see the judgment day different than most in our modern day.  I see judgment as us reporting to G-d our eternal desires and G-d instructing in the way and means of achieving such.  I do not see judgment by a loving merciful being as informing anyone that they missed heaven a some small measure and therefore are condemned forever in a hell. 

Quote

One deals with Jesus Christ.  This is why Paul said that Jesus is the image of the invisible God; because Jesus is the physical impression of God upon us; that persona of God which one knows, understands and intellectually interacts with, on the same level so to speak.  Exalted, sanctified men worship Christ as the Father, and they pray with Jesus (who is the eldest of the brethren) to the Father.  I fail to see a breakdown in logic here — This is in complete harmony with the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel. 

Jesus taught that if you see him, you see the invisible G-d (Father) because he and the Father are one.  If one has studied the ancient Mid Eastern Suzerain Servant Vassal Treaties as applied to kingdom - one can recognize G-d the Father as the Suzerain of heaven (kingdom of heaven) and Christ as his Servant Vassal to "lower" or exiled citizens.  Anciently a Servant Vassal was also known as a "Mediator" of the Suzerain (note that Jesus is referred to as a Mediator.  As such the Servant Vassal often spoke in the first person as the Suzerain. - this is because they were sent in the Name of the Suzerain.  There are a preponderance of clues that indicate Jesus as the Servant Vassal of the Suzerain to and exiled or distant providence of the Kingdom.  This includes the notion that the Suzerain is "Invisible" to those under the charge and the jurisdiction of the Servant Vassel. 

Jesus did pray when he was among the exiled but following his resurrection Steven saw Jesus on the right hand of the Father which is symbolic of similar or congruent status but one in service of the other.  So here is a better term than exalted since man is fallen - rather than thinking in terms of exalted one can instead understand that man is restored.

Quote

Holding the notion of an eternal, transcendental God requires us to be eternally humble.  There is a mystery in the role of the parent, that—as a child under their care and charge—one never comes to understand; and when we do come to understand, we cease to be under their care and charge.  Moreover, there is not a single passage in the Bible where the prophets have explicitly revealed to us that we could opt out of God’s care and charge, at any point during our eternal existence.  Hence, the mysterious, transcendental notion itself is what creates the humility, and sustains it. 

This is where things get interesting.  I submit that the highest worship is that of an equal (meaning similar or same) giving service to another - not out of forced obligation but out of love,  understanding and sacrifice of self.  The single most used symbol of human relationship to G-d is the covenant of marriage.  One can see how two become one by marriage covenant.  But such a covenant cannot exist if one is transcendent and the other not.  The only way a marriage or covenant relationship is one is when both offer their congruent similar will to one another - which would make no sense under your transcendental model.  It is an obvious contradiction.   Jesus represents the Father and also the sacrifice of his will (and the father's will) in the atonement which proves the relationship anything but transcendental and in return we sacrifice our will to sin, remain fallen, unwhole and unholy to complete the marriage style covenant to become one.  This is also testified to in scripture whenever G-d is referenced as one G-d (which uses the ancient Hebrew term Ehad) which is exactly the same term to designate a man and a woman becoming "one" through marriage covenant.   If G-d was a singular transcendental being then the proper Hebrew term would be Yehed. 

Joseph Smith in all the youthful ignorance of an itinerant poor farmer - got it all exactly right.  Not because of brilliant scholarship but because he knelt before and saw the Father and the Son together and as a lad learned more in a moment of revelation than others in a lifetime of studying.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 5:08 PM, Traveler said:

Isaiah listed 3 things that turn us away from G-d.  I had posted these previously.  #1. Transgressing the Law.  #2. Changing the Ordinances.  And #3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  In my mind doctrine is only important if it infringes on the 3 items listed.

If you would, please expand on this.  I am almost certain that I know what you mean to say, though I could be mistaken. 

On 9/9/2019 at 5:08 PM, Traveler said:

Jesus taught that if you see him, you see the invisible G-d (Father) because he and the Father are one.  If one has studied the ancient Mid Eastern Suzerain Servant Vassal Treaties as applied to kingdom - one can recognize G-d the Father as the Suzerain of heaven (kingdom of heaven) and Christ as his Servant Vassal to "lower" or exiled citizens.  Anciently a Servant Vassal was also known as a "Mediator" of the Suzerain (note that Jesus is referred to as a Mediator.  As such the Servant Vassal often spoke in the first person as the Suzerain. - this is because they were sent in the Name of the Suzerain.  There are a preponderance of clues that indicate Jesus as the Servant Vassal of the Suzerain to and exiled or distant providence of the Kingdom.  This includes the notion that the Suzerain is "Invisible" to those under the charge and the jurisdiction of the Servant Vassel. 

Jesus did pray when he was among the exiled but following his resurrection Steven saw Jesus on the right hand of the Father which is symbolic of similar or congruent status but one in service of the other.  So here is a better term than exalted since man is fallen - rather than thinking in terms of exalted one can instead understand that man is restored.

This is where things get interesting.  I submit that the highest worship is that of an equal (meaning similar or same) giving service to another - not out of forced obligation but out of love,  understanding and sacrifice of self.  The single most used symbol of human relationship to G-d is the covenant of marriage.  One can see how two become one by marriage covenant.  But such a covenant cannot exist if one is transcendent and the other not.  The only way a marriage or covenant relationship is one is when both offer their congruent similar will to one another - which would make no sense under your transcendental model.  It is an obvious contradiction.   Jesus represents the Father and also the sacrifice of his will (and the father's will) in the atonement which proves the relationship anything but transcendental and in return we sacrifice our will to sin, remain fallen, unwhole and unholy to complete the marriage style covenant to become one.  This is also testified to in scripture whenever G-d is referenced as one G-d (which uses the ancient Hebrew term Ehad) which is exactly the same term to designate a man and a woman becoming "one" through marriage covenant.   If G-d was a singular transcendental being then the proper Hebrew term would be Yehed.

I understand you to be saying that, God must be a "restored" man because of the nature of his will.  That, the nature of God's will is human, and so, it necessarily follows that he is human, and of physical form.  And your question is,  How can we join with God, and marry him in a manner of speaking, when he is transcendental; considering that one can only join together with another, to an absolute degree of harmony, when they are of the same kind?  Am I correct in this?

=======

Some time ago, I watched the interview of a renowned physicist (forgetting his name); who happened to discuss at one point, the present consensus among physicists concerning the origins of the universe.  He described the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang as being—if one is inclined to picture it, he remarked—in the shape of a disc; and, that, the universe is projecting out of one face of the disc.  He went on to theorize about the reality that exists on the other side of the disc.

Now this makes sense to me, for it is reminiscent of the primordial waters, mentioned in Genesis; and, symbolically, the veil of the temple in Jerusalem.  There seems to be quite literally a dividing curtain, behind which the physical world is unable to seep; where our Father’s mind happens to stir.  It is as though our Father was hovering above the face of a watery, malleable disc, before he created the world; like the mind, thoughts and feelings of a person, hovering in the tissue of the brain; moving and stirring therein, above the plane of body — shaping the body.  And it was the spirit and character of our Father’s mind and soul that had stirred him to impress upon the face of the singularity disc, thereby producing Creation; outwards, from the other face, on the other side of the disc.

Whereas one dimension above the face of the watery, malleable disc is marked by light and repleteness, the other dimension above the other face is marked by darkness and vacuity; materially void, but harboring the mind of our Father.

I tend to think of our Father as a transcendental human mind, who, for eons, had entertained those spirits (essences; moods; convictions; characters) that he perceived were present, with him, in the darkness of the vacuity and material void.  And, that, our Father rejected the spirits; all but one:  the holiest.

Therefore, Creation happens to suffer because God is suffering the unholy spirits.  It is those unholy essences that existed above and beyond the one face of the singularity disc, that are being tolerated here, too, above any beyond this face of the disc, in Creation; all so that humankind might become one, in their choice to suffer the unholy spirits with God, for the sake of knowing and loving the holiest of them; the one our Father calls his very own.  Life is not about glorifying our Father per se, but rather about glorifying our Father's spirit; as per his wishes.

As you can see, according to my beliefs, I am but an inch away from believing that God is an exalted man.  What is behind the curtain?  I do not know.  There might be an exalted man there.  Perhaps there is some piece of information out there that would make things click; that would make me understand.  I am seeking this out. 

On 9/9/2019 at 5:08 PM, Traveler said:

Joseph Smith in all the youthful ignorance of an itinerant poor farmer - got it all exactly right.  Not because of brilliant scholarship but because he knelt before and saw the Father and the Son together and as a lad learned more in a moment of revelation than others in a lifetime of studying.

I agree that Joseph Smith is a true prophet.  However, I think it is unreasonable to expect me to believe in something which all but one person testified to; especially since the Bible states that facts are to be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 

I believe that something remarkable happened, in the coming of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration, but I cannot accept (at this point) that the doctrine of exaltation was it.  There are far greater, more convincing interpretations of what has happened, in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Seek said:

If you would, please expand on this.  I am almost certain that I know what you mean to say, though I could be mistaken. 

Here is the Isaiah reference - you may want to read the whole chapter - if you read this from the King James version watch for the "" symbol the helps explain the ancient literary structure of the particular scripture:  

Isaiah 24:4-5

4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

Quote

I understand you to be saying that, God must be a "restored" man because of the nature of his will.  That, the nature of God's will is human, and so, it necessarily follows that he is human, and of physical form.  And your question is,  How can we join with God, and marry him in a manner of speaking, when he is transcendental; considering that one can only join together with another, to an absolute degree of harmony, when they are of the same kind?  Am I correct in this?

=======

Some time ago, I watched the interview of a renowned physicist (forgetting his name); who happened to discuss at one point, the present consensus among physicists concerning the origins of the universe.  He described the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang as being—if one is inclined to picture it, he remarked—in the shape of a disc; and, that, the universe is projecting out of one face of the disc.  He went on to theorize about the reality that exists on the other side of the disc.

Now this makes sense to me, for it is reminiscent of the primordial waters, mentioned in Genesis; and, symbolically, the veil of the temple in Jerusalem.  There seems to be quite literally a dividing curtain, behind which the physical world is unable to seep; where our Father’s mind happens to stir.  It is as though our Father was hovering above the face of a watery, malleable disc, before he created the world; like the mind, thoughts and feelings of a person, hovering in the tissue of the brain; moving and stirring therein, above the plane of body — shaping the body.  And it was the spirit and character of our Father’s mind and soul that had stirred him to impress upon the face of the singularity disc, thereby producing Creation; outwards, from the other face, on the other side of the disc.

Whereas one dimension above the face of the watery, malleable disc is marked by light and repleteness, the other dimension above the other face is marked by darkness and vacuity; materially void, but harboring the mind of our Father.

I tend to think of our Father as a transcendental human mind, who, for eons, had entertained those spirits (essences; moods; convictions; characters) that he perceived were present, with him, in the darkness of the vacuity and material void.  And, that, our Father rejected the spirits; all but one:  the holiest.

Therefore, Creation happens to suffer because God is suffering the unholy spirits.  It is those unholy essences that existed above and beyond the one face of the singularity disc, that are being tolerated here, too, above any beyond this face of the disc, in Creation; all so that humankind might become one, in their choice to suffer the unholy spirits with God, for the sake of knowing and loving the holiest of them; the one our Father calls his very own.  Life is not about glorifying our Father per se, but rather about glorifying our Father's spirit; as per his wishes.

As you can see, according to my beliefs, I am but an inch away from believing that God is an exalted man.  What is behind the curtain?  I do not know.  There might be an exalted man there.  Perhaps there is some piece of information out there that would make things click; that would make me understand.  I am seeking this out. 

I agree that Joseph Smith is a true prophet.  However, I think it is unreasonable to expect me to believe in something which all but one person testified to; especially since the Bible states that facts are to be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 

I believe that something remarkable happened, in the coming of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration, but I cannot accept (at this point) that the doctrine of exaltation was it.  There are far greater, more convincing interpretations of what has happened, in my humble opinion.

I have a bit of a problem with a physicist (especially carrying the title of renowned) that speaks of a singularity in the shape of a disk; because a disk violates every principle of singularity.  By definition a disk has shape and dimension which of necessity requires distinguishable “points” within the structure.  I have not encountered a single reliable physicist that suggests that a singularity can exist, except at a “point”, which has no shape, structure, distinguishable points or dimensions and is why a point is a suitable reference to a singularity. 

But there are other problems with various theories dealing with the Big Bang coming from a singularity.  Perhaps the most prominent is that the universe is too big – by several magnitudes.  If a Big Band could have came from a singularity – it would have gone “Bang” with a smaller singularity than what would not produce our universe as we currently understand it.

And so theoretical physicist have tried to come up with other possibilities – like colliding ripples in parallel universes, multiple Big Bangs and the collapse of some other universe through a singularity (supermassive Black Hole).  The problem is not so much that the universe cannot be explained by a Big Bang as much as it is problematic gathering sufficient data from our little planet within the very limited time frame we have available.

For myself, and many scientists, the problem with the religious notion of a transcendental (supernatural, mystical or magical being) as the source of the universe is that it is not necessary.   The more we learn and understand the more we realize that there are reasonable intelligent explanations.  As we learn the progression is not leading science down the path that supernatural or transcendental magic is required for the universe to exist.  Rather the opposite is what we find more and more.  That there is intelligent order within the simple parameters we experience here on this obscure orb we call earth that are consistent throughout the entire universe.

I am quite sure that if we were capable of aligning the same parameters from which life was created here on earth – we could create another earth with such life in countless other places in this universe.  The primary ingredient being intelligence.  Which BTW – is what we are told in the Book of Abraham is the character of G-d being that intelligence greater than all others.  In Abraham we are told that if two intelligences exist, one will be greater than the other and that G-d is greater than them all.  This idea of greater intelligence fit very well with the concept of eternal increase and the intelligent “Hive Mind” I posted earlier that the whole is greater than the sum of all it parts.

There are an number of notions that you have touched upon that I think are very exciting and have a lot of possibilities.  That is the reference to “water” as a building block of creation.  The notion that for stars, solar systems and galaxies; water is very necessary stuff – and not just for life but for balance and symmetry even on galactic scale – that it is likely that without water, galaxies and solar systems would not form.  It is also interesting that in ancient Egypt it was believed that all things were created from water. (but this is another discussion).

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Traveler 

Roger Penrose is the name.  I happened to locate the interview on YouTube.  He goes into a theory which he is working on, called, Conformal Cyclical Cosmology (CCC); which posits that the universe advances into another universe such as our own, albeit, perhaps, slightly different.  The part of the interview which I was referring to — about the disc — was where Penrose figures the singularity as being flat, through a “trick of mathematics”, but which he supposes is essentially the reality of things.  

But regardless of whether Penrose is correct, the problem it would seem is that Joseph Smith imagined a universe that was eternally static.  The universe itself did not come into being by God, for the gods are themselves of the universe.  God merely happened to form this planet (solar system; galaxy) within the universe; within his own sector of space.  Hence, Kolob.  In other words, the universe does not expand or contract; and it cannot cease to exist.  That is the notion which Joseph Smith presented to the Church as a revelation of doctrine.  But such cannot possibly be true, scientifically speaking. 

As I mentioned before, I find it fascinating that Penrose is supposing the singularity is flat.  Because the author(s) of Genesis suppose that God’s Spirit was hovering over a flatness, that was the surface of the waters; before things began to be divided. 

I have always felt that Mormon cosmology would be so much more plausible if God’s Spirit was understood to be the force and potency of the gods:  the God of the gods.  Unfortunately the present doctrine holds that God’s Spirit is a mere spirit child of the Heavenly Parents, who has yet to receive a body.  Uff da.  

Regarding the transcendental nature of God, I would not characterize it as being supernatural or magical.  Rather, simply, as beyond the scope of our comprehension.  Mysterious — yes.  But not supernatural; et cetera.  A transcendental God is as natural as the universe itself; they go together.  I am curious to know the reasons that make you regard a transcendental God (creatio ex nihilo) as being “supernatural” or “magical”.  

Below are some statements by Penrose, made in the interview: 

When you do not have mass, you do not have this scale.  So very near the Big Bang the universe did not know how big it was, you see.  So you have to extend Einstein's equations in such a way that they do not -- You know, what do they do when you do not worry about big and small -- They are equivalent.  Now when you do that, you find that the Big Bang is not this horrible singularity, it is just a nice smooth surface.  And it is that very nice sort of -- You imagine a space, and it stops there, you see; with a nice smooth surface.  So you might say, well, maybe there is something on the other side of that smooth surface.  And you just need a little extension of Einstein to be able to treat this conformal boundary to the spacetime.  And the fact that it is a nice smooth surface is actually a way of looking at the problem I was just mentioning.

You stretch out the Big Bang, and then it is nice and smooth; and you can extend it to something behind it.  Now there is the big question; what was behind it?  I would have normally said there is nothing behind it; that is just a nice way of characterizing it.  But it is very tempting to think, if you can extend it -- and this is just using a mild extension of Einstein -- to something on the other side, what was on the other side?  

You could talk about inifinity.  You may say it is a mathematical trick.  And that is what we did for a long time.  It is a very useful way of talking about radiation, when you want to know what is the ultimate measure of the strength of that radiation.  So you go out to infinity.  How do you do that?  Well, the trick is to squash infinity down so it is a finite place, so that you can see where it is.  Just a mathematical trick.  But, now I am saying -- These tricks are, in a sense, real.  That is what the real world is doing.  And so it has forgotten how to measure time in this mass way.  And you have this finite boundary, and you can talk about infinity in a perfectly coherent way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 8:00 AM, Seek said:

@Traveler 

Roger Penrose is the name.  I happened to locate the interview on YouTube.  He goes into a theory which he is working on, called, Conformal Cyclical Cosmology (CCC); which posits that the universe advances into another universe such as our own, albeit, perhaps, slightly different.  The part of the interview which I was referring to — about the disc — was where Penrose figures the singularity as being flat, through a “trick of mathematics”, but which he supposes is essentially the reality of things.  

But regardless of whether Penrose is correct, the problem it would seem is that Joseph Smith imagined a universe that was eternally static.  The universe itself did not come into being by God, for the gods are themselves of the universe.  God merely happened to form this planet (solar system; galaxy) within the universe; within his own sector of space.  Hence, Kolob.  In other words, the universe does not expand or contract; and it cannot cease to exist.  That is the notion which Joseph Smith presented to the Church as a revelation of doctrine.  But such cannot possibly be true, scientifically speaking. 

As I mentioned before, I find it fascinating that Penrose is supposing the singularity is flat.  Because the author(s) of Genesis suppose that God’s Spirit was hovering over a flatness, that was the surface of the waters; before things began to be divided. 

I have always felt that Mormon cosmology would be so much more plausible if God’s Spirit was understood to be the force and potency of the gods:  the God of the gods.  Unfortunately the present doctrine holds that God’s Spirit is a mere spirit child of the Heavenly Parents, who has yet to receive a body.  Uff da.  

Regarding the transcendental nature of God, I would not characterize it as being supernatural or magical.  Rather, simply, as beyond the scope of our comprehension.  Mysterious — yes.  But not supernatural; et cetera.  A transcendental God is as natural as the universe itself; they go together.  I am curious to know the reasons that make you regard a transcendental God (creatio ex nihilo) as being “supernatural” or “magical”.  

Below are some statements by Penrose, made in the interview: 

When you do not have mass, you do not have this scale.  So very near the Big Bang the universe did not know how big it was, you see.  So you have to extend Einstein's equations in such a way that they do not -- You know, what do they do when you do not worry about big and small -- They are equivalent.  Now when you do that, you find that the Big Bang is not this horrible singularity, it is just a nice smooth surface.  And it is that very nice sort of -- You imagine a space, and it stops there, you see; with a nice smooth surface.  So you might say, well, maybe there is something on the other side of that smooth surface.  And you just need a little extension of Einstein to be able to treat this conformal boundary to the spacetime.  And the fact that it is a nice smooth surface is actually a way of looking at the problem I was just mentioning.

You stretch out the Big Bang, and then it is nice and smooth; and you can extend it to something behind it.  Now there is the big question; what was behind it?  I would have normally said there is nothing behind it; that is just a nice way of characterizing it.  But it is very tempting to think, if you can extend it -- and this is just using a mild extension of Einstein -- to something on the other side, what was on the other side?  

You could talk about inifinity.  You may say it is a mathematical trick.  And that is what we did for a long time.  It is a very useful way of talking about radiation, when you want to know what is the ultimate measure of the strength of that radiation.  So you go out to infinity.  How do you do that?  Well, the trick is to squash infinity down so it is a finite place, so that you can see where it is.  Just a mathematical trick.  But, now I am saying -- These tricks are, in a sense, real.  That is what the real world is doing.  And so it has forgotten how to measure time in this mass way.  And you have this finite boundary, and you can talk about infinity in a perfectly coherent way. 

Thanks - and so it seems that the plot thickens.  Penrose is a respectable physicists and has contributed some credatable ideas about Black Holes, Wormholes and the Big Bang.  From my limited research he is not suggesting that any singularity is flat (meaning 2 dimensional).  What he is suggesting is that something existed before the Big Bang and before the singularity of the Big Bang and that was a pre-universe and pre-singularity structure of a "disk".  He is attempting to address significant problems of the Big Bang and also resolving relativity (including special relativity) with quantum mechanics.   His ideas have pushed the envelope of possible considerations.  I would like to make one point about his contribution to a scientific view before moving on to young Joseph Smith and his contribution.  Penrose suggests that the genesis of our universe was a "smooth" transition of things from a pre-singularity into our universe.  This is to get around problems put forth from the two laws of thermodynamics.  A Big Bang or explosion is an exercise of chaos and it is most difficult to justify order to the degree we see.  Especially the use of infinity in mathematics.  There is no such thing as infinity in our universe.  But let's put this aside and consider contributions from Joseph Smith.

First, I would point out that Joseph Smith's contributions are all pre-quantum mechanics and pre-Einstein special relativity and in the very static universe defined by Newtonian Physics or Newtonian mechanics.   Joseph taught something far before it time.  For example he suggested the creation of "something" outside our physical universe even before the creation of our universe.  That all things were created spiritually before they existed physically.  So revolutionary is this concept that I do not know of any other religion (except perhaps Buddhism) to even consider such a notion.  Even though Joseph talks about eternal things and beings - he introduces the realm of spirit;  best described as "intelligences" that are themselves coexisting with the intelligence of G-d.  This single contribution to the religious community solves the age old arguments of free will versus determinism and how we are free but G-d knows our future choices.  Quite profound from a philosophical point of view. 

Thus Joseph's view of the universe is hardly static.  And though quantum mechanics seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics for very small periods of time (quantum anomalies) that our universe is constantly being affected and altered from the spiritual realm - a realm from which we humans (and all life) originated before we had physical form in this universe as we understand it.   In short that our universe is not comprised of just the elements that we think it is made up from; but also includes spiritual elements that we have not found means of metrics yet.  I am not of the mind that Penrose's contributions are that different from Joseph's - considering that Joseph preceded Penrose by about 150 years and lack a foundation of explanation in modern physics.  Please note that currently it is believed that our understanding of physics (including Penrose's) can only account for about 5% of how our universe exists in galaxies and superstructures (including supermassive Black Holes).  

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Traveler

Plato believed there was a preexistence. This notion was widespread in ancient times. Origen believed in a preexistence; and he was therefore condemned, for heresy, because preexistence was associated with Platonism. I agree with you that preexistence solves the free will debate, such as between Calvinism and Arminianism; but I disagree that Joseph was the one who conceived of a great resolution to the problem. The resolution was already present, and Joseph merely gave it support.

Where in the Scriptures does Joseph ever suggest that things were created beyond the realm of our universe, as you suggest? The very idea of Kolob seems to suggest otherwise. Creatio ex materia, also. They paint the picture that all of God’s work is done within the universe.

You have made some very persuasive points over the course of our conversation. I do not want you to think that I keep coming back with a response only to set out to prove that I am right. There are some lingering points which lead me to believe that Joseph‘s notion of God is incorrect. I am responding, with the hope that you can prove me wrong; that you can satisfy my doubts. And maybe you will not be able to. But I appreciate your time and effort. I look forward to hearing from you now, about this topic, as well as in the future, about other topics.

Edited by Seek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Seek said:

@TravelerPlato believed there was a preexistence. This notion was widespread in ancient times. Origen believed in a preexistence; and he was therefore condemned, for heresy, because preexistence was associated with Platonism. I agree with you that preexistence solves the free will debate, such as between Calvinism and Arminianism; but I disagree that Joseph was the one who conceived of a great resolution to the problem. The resolution was already present, and Joseph merely gave it support.
 

The concept of a pre-existence is believed in many circles - just not the Judaic - Christian - Islamic traditions held over to our modern eras.   Reincarnation is very interesting to me even though it is strongly opposed within the community of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but that discussion is tangent to ours.

Quote

Where in the Scriptures does Joseph ever suggest that things were created beyond the realm of our universe, as you suggest? The very idea of Kolob seems to suggest otherwise. Creatio ex materia, also. They paint the picture that all of God’s work is done within the universe.

I would point you to the Pearl of Great Price - Book of Moses - Chapter 3 verse 5:

"5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;"

The Book of Moses is a great addition to the creation narrative that we have in Genesis.  In Moses Chapter 2 we have parallel creation narrative in Genesis.  If you read the accounts you will note that days 3 and 4 are switched.  Hardly anyone notices this and I am not aware or criticism or other claims of this little fact - but it makes sense and causes me to wonder why this is not a bigger issue between students of religion versus science.

Quote

You have made some very persuasive points over the course of our conversation. I do not want you to think that I keep coming back with a response only to set out to prove that I am right. There are some lingering points which lead me to believe that Joseph‘s notion of God is incorrect. I am responding, with the hope that you can prove me wrong; that you can satisfy my doubts. And maybe you will not be able to. But I appreciate your time and effort. I look forward to hearing from you now, about this topic, as well as in the future, about other topics.

Let me explain something - I run a little consulting business from my home.  I am an expert in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I have made a living explaining to experts how to understand their manufacturing so they can improve it.  The very first thing I do is gather their manufacturing metrics.   The reason I am called in for help is because as expert as they are - they have inefficiencies.   Alway, the first thing discovered is that they lack a great deal of their manufacturing metrics.  Let me give you and example.  Let's say that a widget needs to be attached to every doodle-thing.  So I ask, "How long does it take to get a widget from where you queue (store) them to where you attach them?  What is the best, worse and mean times?  Often they admit that they do not know.  This is a very important step and nothing can be improved until we know what we are doing and trying to accomplish..

Why do I bring this up?  It is to point out that it is impossible to understand and improve upon something that you cannot empirically and consistently measure.  You can pretend you are making improvements - you can believe you are - and you may see bottom or end of line improvements - but unless you understand and can measure incremental improvements you will never know if the improvements (changes) are sustainable, maintainable or improveable. 

This is why I personally do not find attachment to a transcendental, mystical or unknowable G-d.  Such is worthless to me and as near as I can tell - it is worthless to everyone else as well.  I am not saying that we cannot feel good about such a thing or that we cannot believe, hope or want this or that - what I am saying is that you cannot sustain, maintain or realize that anything has changed (let alone improved).  Jesus said, "If you continue in my word (measure and apply) you will know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

You and I exist in this universe.  But we only understand this universe in part.  There is a great deal that we do not understand.  What does it matter if something other than this universe exists? - unless it can have some effect upon us.  And if such does have an effect - why should we think it is not part of this universe?  If we cannot affect something - how can we believe it can affect us?

From a religious standpoint - Why would G-d create?  What is the point of a creation?  If what he creates has no effect on G-d how can anyone say that there is a purpose?  Why are some born with defects?  Why so much suffering?  Why is there death?  What are the metrics of life?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now