Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[Log]

I grant that there are infinite ways to metaphorize or allegorize or to otherwise deny the literal meaning of a text, but I would say individuals who engage in such rationalizations do not believe the endowments.

Rolling eyes? Bud, I proved your case for you.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Please check my edit. I apologize for rolling my virtual eyes, and would appreciate it if you'd apologize for claiming that if someone has a different interpretation of the Endowments than you, that they necessarily don't believe in them.

[LeSellers]

Just wait until we find the first 13 toed race. Can you imagine the math in base 13! It would take eons for us to learn to count much less talk together.

I doubt it would be all the difficult. True, 13 is a prime number, so fractions would be hard to reduce (⁴/₁₀ = ²/₅, for instance, but there is no fraction with the denominator of 13 the would reduce to anything else). But 10 is not the "perfect" base number, either: 12 would be better since it has more factors. Only 1, 5, 7 and 11 over 12 would not reduce to a simpler form. For ten, 1, 3, 7, and 9 all remain as is; the difference is ⁴/₁₂ (=¹/₃) v. ⁴/₁₀ (=²/₅).

We learn to work with binary (base 2) digits without too many problems, computers are impossible as we know them without this system. And that is a very difficult system since any number grows to a large number of digits quickly (89₁₃ = 113₁₀ = 111001₂). Adding is simpler, perhaps, with some practice, but multiplication takes a slog of an effort.

We get used to what is "normal", and it doesn't matter too much what normal is.

That said, I'm convinced that, even if there were no Creator, we'd still share a great deal with intelligent extraterrestrials because what we are works pretty well. Because there is a Creator, we share the same "template", and anyone "out there" looks just like us.

Lehi

Edited April 2, 2012 by LeSellers

[Log]

Please check my edit. I apologize for rolling my virtual eyes, and would appreciate it if you'd apologize for claiming that if someone has a different interpretation of the Endowments than you, that they necessarily don't believe in them.

That, Brother Smith, is precisely what I didn't say.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You certainly implied it.

[Log]

Not in my mind - I meant only and exactly what I said.

You stepped over the line. Next time you will be leaving the thread.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Minos

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with as was done on other worlds. It is just we have no example for any of it beyond our world. Personally I believe that the distances are just too great for any communication until we develop some type of subspace or faster than light communication. That doesn't appear to be likely in anything but the far distant syfi future. But who knows the Vulcans could visit tomorrow.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Log:

You said that "everyone who believes the Endowments" believes in a colonization model. That is not true. It also implies that if one doesn't believe in that particular interpretation, that they therefore don't believe in the Endowments. That is also not true.

[Log]

Brother Smith:

I am not permitted to cite the ceremony directly. It says what I attribute to it.

Log:

You said that "everyone who believes the Endowments" believes in a colonization model. That is not true.

It is true. See post 101.

It also implies that if one doesn't believe in that particular interpretation, that they therefore don't believe in the Endowments. That is also not true.

See that bolded, underlined, italicized, font-size-increased word? I did not say that; you imputed it to me. It was not present in my thoughts, and it utterly alters the meaning of what I said. See post 104.

By way of example, it is possible to believe in Christ, without believing Christ on any particular topic he cared to speak on. I think Stephen Robinson wrote a book to that effect.

Minos, I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and would appreciate enlightenment.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm not seeing the distinction you're trying to draw. How is "believing the Endowments" different than "believing in the Endowments"?

(Edit: You know, forget it. This is silly. Let's just agree to disagree and re-rail the thread, aight? Sorry for the annoying distraction, everyone. I shouldn't have taken the bait.)

Edited April 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

Ok, now you have confused me utterly - if you don't see the distinction, why did you insert the word "in" into your claim of what I said?

[Jeff K.]

I know of no strict evolutionist who would argue that it is even remotely plausible for life on other planets to evolve which have ten fingers and ten toes, two eyes, a nose, etc just as we do. Though, if you see such an argument being made please point it out. I'd love to see it.

That is a bit specific, and certainly not what anyone here said. The position you take seems to be somewhat extreme. I suggest you rethink it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Log: It wasn't a conscious attempt to change what you said. I don't see what difference the "in" even makes to the statement, no matter how much it is bolded and underlined. Clearly we are talking past each other to no good end, so let's just drop it and let the thread move on.

[Log]

Can you believe that Christ exists and is the Son of God (that is to say, can you believe in Christ), without believing that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven (that is to say, without believing Christ)?

If, still, you don't see the difference, then I shall bid you adieu.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Adieu.

[Jeff K.]

Ah yes, to God for all.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Meanwhile, back in the actual topic:

Nibley's got that great essay Treasures in the Heavens that I recommend with annoying persistence. Cool sci-fi colonization footnotes:

When God sent forth a ship of light "laden with the riches of the Living," Satan and his pirate crew coming "I know not from where" seized "the treasure of the Mighty One" and "distributed it among their worlds," until they were forced to give it up. (Psalms of Thomas 3:1—15, 29—32, 35; Manichaean Psalm-Book, II, 53, 163, 178; cf. the image of the three ships, Berlin Manich. Hs. 1:50; Psalms of Thomas 12:1—13.)

The Second Coptic Work 14a (ed. C. Schmidt, in TU 8:236, 286) has Christ coming out of the monas of Setheus "like a ship laden with all manner of precious things," so also the Manichaean Psalm-Book, II, 151—152, 168, 171, 174; in the Johannesbuch der Mand. 206, No. 58, a ship moves between the worlds bearing the glory of the Treasure of Life from one to the other.

In the Egyptian Victory Over Seth 1:19—22, the god passes through dangerous straits in his ship while Seth and his robber band try to waylay him. (In the Book of the Dead, the battle of the gods takes place on board a ship [H. Grapow, Das 17. Kapitel des Totenbuches, p. 37].)

When Adam returns to "the Treasure of Life," he is asked by the guardians "what wares he is bringing in his ship." (J. Leipoldt, Religionsgeschichte des Orients [Leiden: Brill, 1961], pp. 86—87). In numerous Acts of Thomas, the Captain of the ship or the rich merchant is Christ in disguise, e.g., A. Klijn, Acts of Thomas 2—3. The same commercial imagery of the ship appears in the Johannesbuch der Mand., 84—86, No. 20—21; cf. Ginza, p. 324.

The seven planets are described as floating ships (Mandaean Prayerbook, No. 286 [CPM, p. 288]); these seven try to rob man of his treasure (Psalms of Thomas 5:4 [in ZNTW, Beih. 24 (1959): 123]); 1012 Questions, pp. 251, 258. The Ark itself was not a ship but a luminous cloud in space, according to the Apocryphon of John 73:5—12.

In the Genesis Apocryphon 2:4, Lamech swears by "the King of all the Ages ['olamim]" (cf. the common Moslem expressions); God made the "worlds" (Odes Sol. 16:19; 12:4, 8 ); all the worlds worship the Sent One as "Illuminator of their worlds" (ibid., 11:12; so Psalms of Thomas 8:13, 6ff.; 1012 Questions, p. 112); "other worlds" have been going on forever (Gospel of Philip 106:18—19).

The created world is plural in Apocryphon of John 21:22; the worlds assemble before him (Psalms of Thomas 8:6). The angel who came to Isaiah was of another firmament and another world. (Ascension of Isaiah 6:13.) The adversary opposed the plan of God "to create another world" and to put Adam in charge. (Secrets of Enoch 31:3.)

A logion depicts the Saints hereafter moving freely through space among the spheres. ("Logia et agrapha," No. 127, in Graffin, PO 19:547; cf. 2 Baruch 48:9.) The Father is in the worlds (kosmois), and the Son is first and highest among those worlds (en toisde tois kosmois), according to an early Liturgy, in Graffin, PO 18:445—46, 448.

Each heaven is completely equipped with thrones, dwellings, temples, etc., and there are many such heavens. (Creation Apocryphon 150:18ff., 23—25.) The Archon Jaldaboth created beautiful heavens for his sons (ibid., 150:9—10; Hypostasis of the Archons 144:5—10), furnished with stolen materials (see above, note 39).

The central topos is the Treasury of the true God (C. Schmidt, TU 8 [1892]: 367); it is "the topos from which all aeons and all cosmoses take their pattern and their origin" (Sophia Christi 116 [in TU 60:266ff.]). It is "the self-produced and self-begotten topos" from which all others are derived (Second Gnostic Work 1a); it is called "the God-bearing" topos, or "land of the begetting of gods" (ibid., 21a).

Early views of the Creation can be related to the establishment of God's reign over a particular land. (W. Richter, BZ, NF 10 [1966]: 96—105.) The colonization of worlds is always a family affair: "All of them He raised Him up" to "fill the face of the earth with their seed." (Zadokite Doc. 2:10.) The inhabitants are the progeny or seed of those who sent them (1 Enoch 39:1; 1012 Questions. pp. 118, 170—71; Sophia Christi 88:7ff.; 98:1—99:5ff.; Apocryphon of James 1:43:5ff.), called "chosen seed, or seed of promise" (J. Zandee, in Numen 11 [1964]: 45—46).

When "elect and holy children . . . descend from heaven, . . . their seed will become one with the children of men." (1 Enoch 39:1.) Simat-Hiia, the primordial Eve, is "mother of all kings, from whom all worlds proceeded." (Alma Rishaia Rba 6:388ff. [in E. Drower, Nasoraean Commentaries, p. 29].) A colonizing activity is described in Pistis Sophia 16 (26—27), 25 (36—37), 24 (34—35). Lactantius mentions polemically the idea of real seeds floating around in space. (Div. Inst. 3:17.)

"Planting" can here mean create, beget, establish, or assist; that is, it is the proper work of the "Sent One," according to M. Lidzbarski, Johannesbuch der Mand., p. 60, n. 6, and Berlin Manich. Hs. 1:53—54. Eden was God's planting on earth. (W. Richter, BZ, NF, 10 [1966]: 101—2.) "I said that the world should be, . . . [saying] I will plant a great vineyard, and out of it I will choose a plant," that is, the Chosen People (Pseudo-Philo 28:4); the Qumran Community calls itself a planting (IQS 8:5; 11:15), as does the early Church (Irenaeus, adv. Haeres., V, 36:1).

God's "planting in the world of men" includes providing necessary physical substances (Psalms of Thomas 3:29—35) and the "planting" of light in a place of darkness (ibid. 7:17). God, before the world existed, planted the earth and then planted the Garden in it (4 Esdras 3:4, 6); He is the "Greatest of Gardeners," "the Planter" par excellence (H. F. Weiss, Hell. Judent., p. 50).

Those who share in God's plan are his "plants" (1012 Questions, pp. 127, 140, 150), who in turn have their disciples or plants (ibid., pp. 130, 216—17). The human race is Adam's "planting" (Mandaean Prayerbook, No. 378 [CPM, 283, 286]; No. 386 [CPM, 290]). The elect are "the plants that God has planted," and they must plant their own plants through marriage. (Ginza, pp. 61—62.) The "planting" of the earth is described as a colonizing enterprise in Ginza, pp. 335, 337; they move from place to place in winged wagons, looking for places to settle (ibid., pp. 337—40); the Planter is expected to provide the necessary helpers for new settlers (ibid., p. 404). Ritually, the planting is a sparsio, a sowing or begetting of the race. (H. Nibley, "Sparsiones," Classical Journal 40 [1945]: 515ff.)

Edited April 3, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

You know that's definitely not true. Nor is it a helpful statement in any way. Try, "I personally find that very compatible with how I understand the teachings of the Endowment, and probably many others do, too." - I would agree with you that many could and do legitimately see it that way. But to equate that particular understanding with "Believing" the ordinance is not cool.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108009 and http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108037

You seem to have made the same misreading as Brother Smith. Either what I said was so confusing that no other English speaker on the planet understands what I meant, in which case the fault is solely mine, or people on this board have a hair-trigger predisposition for taking offense.

Log has left the building for questioning another poster's faithfulness.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Minos

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108009 and http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108037

You seem to have made the same misreading as Brother Smith. Either what I said was so confusing that no other English speaker on the planet understands what I meant, in which case the fault is solely mine, or people on this board have a hair-trigger predisposition for taking offense.

It might be the latter but..............

Edited April 2, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[silvermoon383]

Just wait until we find the first 13 toed race. Can you imagine the math in base 13! It would take eons for us to learn to count much less talk together.

Try base 8. That gets interesting.

[Rivers]

You'd think that physician would have enough scientific training to better understand these issues.

[Calm]

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108009 and http://www.mormondia...__p__1209108037

You seem to have made the same misreading as Brother Smith. Either what I said was so confusing that no other English speaker on the planet understands what I meant, in which case the fault is solely mine, or people on this board have a hair-trigger predisposition for taking offense.

Log has left the building for questioning another poster's faithfulness.

Log has left, but if I read him right he is saying that someone can believe in the existence of a concept without believing it is true or in the existence of a person or thing without believing it teaches truth.....so he can agree that there are those who "believe in" the endowment (meaning they believe it exists but teaches metaphor) while still implying those individuals don't accept it as truth if they don't accept it as literal.

However when President Hinckley said "Believe in Christ" somehow I doubt he was talking about simply being in Christ's existence.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/03/inspirational-thoughts?lang=eng&query=%22believe+in%22

Using the phrase "believe in" to mean "accept as truth" is common usage and should hardly be a reason for criticism that someone is saying something different whether they say "I believe _____" or "I believe in ________".

[mikwut]

Nofear:

I know of no strict evolutionist who would argue that it is even remotely plausible for life on other planets to evolve which have ten fingers and ten toes, two eyes, a nose, etc just as we do. Though, if you see such an argument being made please point it out. I'd love to see it.

Simon Conway Morris' convergence pretty much would state just that. That if you re-wound the tape of evolutionary life contrary to Stephen J. Gould you would get remarkably similar convergent evolutionary creatures. His book Life's Solution is an excellent read:

http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Solution-Inevitable-Humans-Universe/dp/0521603250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333414092&sr=8-1

[Cobalt-70]

How many observations were made of the geocentric model of the universe? Millions of observations of the sun moving around the earth from east to west.

This points out the flaw in this argument == it is not the data itself but the interpretation of the data, those observations, that can be flawed. We now see the earth moving around the sun, so our interpretation has changed.

And that's a "historical fact".

Yes, but the ironic thing is that it was the church, not Copernicus and other scientists, who opposed the geocentric model of the universe. Not for any observational reasons, but simply because the bible portrayed the earth as the center of the universe. Mormons should not make the same mistake as the Catholic Church, and up until the early 20th century, Mormons were far more willing to accept science as a source of truth than most other Christians.

As to the Big Bang, though, there is not much left open to interpretation. Our telescopes have taken pictures of the Big Bang, and while the model of the Big Bang is open to interpretation and is in fact an area of constant flux, the fact of the Big Bang is no longer in question, any more than the fall of Rome is in question. In other words, it happened. But exactly how it happened, or why it happened, or what it means, are still open questions.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

IIRC the pictures of the earliest universe are about 600,000,000 years from the Big Bang. Though I do agree that the Big Bang did happen.