Benjamin McGuire

Generally yes. And I would say that the problems are even similar - except for a couple of things. The Higgs Boson was predicted half a century ago. It was a necessary particle for General Relativity. It was demonstrated mathematically long before we had the technology to test for it. And when we managed to develop the technology so that the test could be performed, the tests provided evidence that the Higgs Boson existed. That we could predict this mathematically - decades before it could be tested and then to have those tests confirm the theory provides a very strong confirmation of the theory as a whole (even if it is incomplete). So we have a mathematical necessity for Dark Matter under the broadly accepted current model. This isn't the only possible explanation - it's a necessary component of the the big bang theory that we currently have. But, suppose that we modify the big bang, and instead of a single singularity exploding once into the universe as we know it, we have a series of explosions. If we make the beginning a bit more "wobbly," perhaps we don't need dark matter at all. But in any case, Dark Matter isn't simply hypothesized. We have things that suggest evidence for the theory - if we can't observe it directly, we can observe its impact on things we can observe (like light, which appears to move when it hits the curvature of space-time believed to be caused by dark matter). Which brings us back to the question of the Electric Universe. In the Electric Universe model, bodies of mass in the solar system were argued to have been ejected by the sun due to the polarized electrical charge of these objects. These objects are supposed to maintain that polarized charge, and it is this electrical charge (and not gravity) that keeps these objects in their respective orbits in the solar system. This was why, when the probes to comets were announced, the leading figures of the EU model suggested that you could never land on one with a probe - the contact would generate an arc of electricity that would destroy the probe. This didn't happen. (At least one of the videos discussed here mentions this). The problem with the EU is that it hasn't generated any empirical evidence in part because there is no real mathematical model behind it. The claims have never reached that level - in part because some of them seem so absurd - especially in light of the things that we do know with some certainty about physics. So we can't really compare Dark Matter with something like the EU. We certainly can't compare the EU with the Higgs Boson. If the EU could come up with some predictions that were proven right - and if their theories could be put into discrete theories and mathematical equations that would allow us to make predictions and test them, then we could move forward. But until then, it largely remains in the realm of pseudo-science. Despite the fact that there seems to be an effort to embrace our better telescopes, the hopes of those who favor the electric universe model have not been borne out by these technological developments. Better telescopes have only increased evidence for gravitational lensing. They have only improved our Cosmic Microwave Background measurements. Both of these things are inherently contradictory to the Electric Universe model. And our ability to see back into the past has only increased our belief and understanding of fusion as the energy driver of stars - not some sort of massive cosmic electrical pathway. I'll explain why I labeled it this way. First, we can't actually smell space because it's a vacuum. There is no mechanism for breathing it in - for moving the matter past our olfactory organs. We can only pretend like space is some sort of medium that we could breath in and see if there is enough density in the matter that is there to smell it. But, our anatomy doesn't work that way - and the theory here suggests that we could simply collect the density of matter and compare that with the matter that we can smell. Which brings us to the second point - Earth's atmosphere at sea level contains approximately 25 billion, billion (quintillion) molecules per cubic centimeter. Deep space typically has less than 1 atom on average per cubic centimeter. Somewhere in between is this 3-10 particles per cubic centimeter that the video mentions. If these particles are much larger than single molecules, they won't create odors in space locks when air is added back in. And if they are molecule sized, we are looking at a ratio of 3-10 parts per 25 quintillion? Even the most detectable smells that we know are nowhere near that level. Mercaptans have an olfactory threshold of 1-2 parts per billion. That solar wind at 3-10 parts per cubic centimeter would be so far below that threshold to be unnoticeable when introduced to us in breathable air. So the best that I can describe this as a metaphor. What would space smell like, if we took the materials that we detect and crank them up to smellable levels? And since that wouldn't be what space really smells like (even if we could smell in space), the whole thing is sort of a fantasy - and here it is a fantasy being used to promote the electric universe model - it is the click bait for the title. The whole thing reminds me of a line from the movie The Matrix, where Agent Smith tells Neo: Of course, it's a digital reality in which everything is really simply a virtual impression made on the brain by induced electrical impulses. That smell (in the movie) is a metaphor. The strangeness for me is the videos attempt to assert that it isn't really a metaphor, its a reality and that it really means something for this bad theory.

For those who are interested, Kraft republished the essay as Chapter 3 of his Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Brill, 2009). This is the copy that I have. Of course, the article, as you note, was published in 1978. And it probably would be more useful - particularly when we discuss a text like First Enoch, to address the current scholarship (of which there is certainly plenty), instead of something nearly 50 years old. My personal collection is extensive. The stuff that comes out of Enoch isn't exactly earth shaking. Yes, Enoch discusses the Son of Man (but so does Daniel, right?). The thing is, though, in Enoch, the Son of Man is Enoch himself. Probably the best current text dealing with these ideas with regard to First Enoch is the 2013 Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. It has two chapters dating that section of the text. And in Chapter 4, the argument is made that this section was likely authored during the lifetime of Jesus. It makes 7 points in the conclusion: The early complaints about this literature and the way that it gets read are really not as valid as they were fifty years ago. These issues are being taken into consideration. The challenge is that what we don't get is this sense of a deliberate removal of material from Jewish scripture over the whole Christian thing. Most of the claims about this happening that were made by early Christians themselves seem to be hyperbolic. When we look at the texts in context, it shows that early Christian literature (including the scriptural texts) fit well into the late second temple period. But the question of how Christianity uses these texts is also becoming clearer. Your quote from Kraft (as found in Barker) just presents the first half of Kraft's argument - here is the rest of it: So, we are still at that problem with your assertion: It's just not there - and your references don't put it in there. The reality is that Enoch is a relatively late Jewish text. And it isn't widely adopted because it wasn't created in the thought of rabbinic Judaism. As Kraft also notes: A couple of decades earlier, in North Africa, Tertullian had revealed similar reticence in citing the book of Enoch regarding fallen angels, in full recognition that some Christians rejected it because it was not included by the Jews in their scriptural collection (Cult Fem 1.3). Tertullian writes this in 197 CE. This means that the Book of Mormon has been around longer now than the complete First Enoch had been when Tertullian wrote. The Jewish Canon was developed in stages. First was the effective canonization of the Pentateuch (the Torah). By 200 BCE, the Prophets had reached its effectively final list (the Nevi'im). First Enoch wasn't included here in any form - and its something we wouldn't have expected - it was simply too new (and as I note, it wasn't completed unto sometime between 40 BCE and 70 CE). So, along with the issues discussed, it shouldn't surprise us that mainstream Judaism generally ignored it - and not because of the fact that early Christians, who were looking for apocalyptic literature grabbed a hold of it, and began to reinterpret it in their own context. One final note on this comment: The problem here is that your arguments about the Dead Sea Scrolls actually undermine this position. I'll explain what I mean. I can't verify the quotes here. I only have a second edition of Kahle's text. The text that you provide here comes from Hugh Nibley's Mormonism and Early Christianity - and he references the first edition. What I can say, with absolute certainty, is that none of Nibley's quotes appear in the second edition. And, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Kahle, assuming that he wrote the things that Nibley quotes, has walked them all back. He does write this - and this is an early assessment: No one questions this anymore - it is consistently believed that the LXX was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dates Christianity. Using Nibley (who is using a badly dated source) is problematic. The Cario Geniza itself is a bad context in which to deal with this - it was a place to dispose of old texts - and it operated between the 9th and 12 centuries CE (some of the texts go back as far as 600 CE) - and there are a few scraps that are much later into the 19th century). So the ideas that are drawn from this collection if we try to move it too far into the past. What we can also say (to connect this to the above comments) is that while lots of copies of Jubilees are found there (a much more mainstream interpretation of scripture), and there are a batch of texts from Qumran that find there way into the Cairo Geniza, there are zero fragments of Enoch. At any rate, I think that Mormonism as a whole tends to have problems with late Jewish and early Christian writings and a certain tendency to engage in parallelomania. They try to reinterpret those texts in light of present day speculation - and then they try to suggest that those speculations are what the texts originally meant ...

It's nonsense because the Dead Sea Scrolls do not "show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters." That is what is nonsense. But to get to what you just posted: So here is the problem that you have. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a lot of sectarian documents. Perhaps these were considered scripture by the group that used them. But, it seems unlikely - they were not held up to that level of authority that the well known and widely circulated scriptural texts were given. So I think that it is reasonable to argue that the First Book of Enoch was not Hebrew scripture - that it was never Hebrew scripture - even if it was given some status in certain circles. Of course, it's easy to make arguments from negative evidence. Clearly, there is no evidence that it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, because, as you claim, the "Jews were ... systematically editing [it] out". The challenge is that the couple of references in the New Testament aren't that helpful. We don't, after all, think that Epimenides or Menander were considered Hebrew Scriptures either - and yet there they are. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contained fifteen copies of Jubilees. Like First Enoch, Jubilees was considered commentary - it was never given the status of Hebrew scripture. It's existence as Qumran doesn't give it that status either. The fact that these texts aren't popular isn't a result of some sort of grand plot. Enoch has challenges that made it popular for the Qumran community but not for other groups of Jews - and the biggest of these was the calendar problem. Enoch's calendar had 12 months which added up to exactly 364 days a year. The traditional Jewish calendar used a cycle of 12 month years with an occasional 13 month year. This created political and religious problems for the community at Qumran when their holy feasts were on a different schedule from the rest of the Jewish community. The Book of Enoch's lack of popularity is much more attributable to this issue than to any differences over messianic figures. No. It wasn't used as a proof text for Christianity. And it certainly didn't last very long in Christianity as a whole - even though its use in the New Testament (of very small pieces) gave it some longevity, it never had wide-scale popularity or support in early Christianity, and was effectively removed in the fourth century. This is another one of those modern myths, isn't it. We are now up to more than 150 manuscripts (mostly fragmentary) of First Enoch. The most complete are Ethiopic - but interestingly enough, the oldest of these manuscripts only dates back to the 14th century. When we look at the Greek and Aramaic texts, what we see if often quite different from the Ethiopic text - and what we can with some certainty is that the Ethiopic version of First Enoch is not particularly representative of the text of First Enoch that would have existed in the Second Temple period. That they are based on the same textual tradition is undisputed. But the Aramaic is in places radically different. The Parables/Similitudes section of First Enoch has no known Aramaic or early Greek version at all. So, was it saved? It's not as simple as you suggest. No. It wasn't. The idea that the Jews repressed First Enoch is an unsubstantiated claim first made by R.H. Charlesworth in 1912, who wrote this: "Its suppression by the Jews was owing to its Messianic character." However, there is no mention made of First Enoch in any Talmudic or Rabbinic writing that mentions First Enoch in connection with burning texts. The reality is that Rabbinic Judaism rejected it because of its non-messianic content - the idea of angels having sex with women, its calendar (which I already mentioned) and so on. We cannot find anything that would work as evidence for Charlesworth's claim - and so generally, his suggestion is largely rejected by academics today. What is fascinating to me is the way that this can be juxtaposed with other actual proof-texts used by early Christians - Isaiah, for example. The Jews certainly didn't repress Isaiah because it was utilized as a proof-text for Christianity, did they ... There are no Greek or Aramaic fragments that cover this section of the text. None. While there may have been earlier versions (there may have been an Aramaic original with a Greek intermediary) there is nothing there. The Dead Sea Scrolls cannot help here - because we would expect (if it had existed) for bits of it to have been found in Qumran. They weren't. As Larry Hurtado noted a few years ago, referencing the work of Loren Stuckenbruck: I think that there is a real risk in trying to make the unpopularity of a text into some sort of concerted effort to get rid of it.

This is all nonsense.

Yeah. It's deceptive. Do you know which part of Earth's atmosphere is the hottest? The thermosphere - it is between 86 and 372 miles above the earth. The temperature in that band ranges from 930 degrees F to 3600 degrees F. It is also true that if you were sitting in that space for more than a brief few moments, you would freeze to death. When you talk about the smell of the universe and you start by using some of the most dense areas of space (that's the bit there about particles per cubic centimeter), where you can best make the argument, and you ignore the fact that this represents only a tiny fraction of space (like a completely minuscule amount), we can start talking about the fact that at the very best sort of understanding, this can only represent a very local sort of observation. It cannot help us understand the universe as we know it. The smelling is, as we all recognize, more of a metaphor - but replacing real science with metaphor is another key tactic of pseudo-science.

Let me respond to this - What you are describing is the heart of what we identify as pseudo-science. Science is not about hypothesis and argument. Using those terms in a sort of ambiguous way is part of the problem here. Science is about testable (and so falsifiable) hypothesis and argument. It isn't enough to simply theorize that measles isn't caused by a virus - you have to have a theory that comes with some recognized way to test that theory. Until the presentation is made where someone would not only theorize that measles is not a virus, and can provide tests that show that measles isn't a virus - as well as showing that the tests were performed and that the outcomes of those tests verified the hypothesis - then, and only then, is it something that should be taken seriously in contrast to the established science (which has also done the same thing). We have some good examples of the scientific blinders in action (at least as you describe them). They created problems - not because of alternative theories - but because the original theory seemed to work so well given the test data that confirmed the theory. One of the most fascinating was the Beta-Amyloid theories and their role in dementia and Alzheimer's. In 2006, a study came out that showed the first really strong connection between the protein and the disease. And that research marked a strong shift in the trajectory of the research. That paper was retracted last year after the data was proven to be falsified. It probably caused some waste in terms of research efforts. But we aren't really talking about that here in terms of the Electrical Universe Model. You should really do the reading on the model if you are going to argue about it. The lack of dark matter is only a tiny part of the model - and if that's your major interest in it, then there are lots of better places to look. The real reason why this model was abandoned in the 1990s is very simple - the Hubble Telescope came on-line. Being able to see into deep space allows us to look far back into the cosmic history (light coming from great distances away shows us things that happened billions of years in the past). And we started observing, for the first time, young stars, and around those stars, proplyds - the disks of matter that form into planets - as hypothesized by more traditional cosmology using the gravity models. What we don't see in any of this look into deep space (and the distant past) is anything at all of the sort that we would expect using the Electric Universe Model. It simply isn't there. The ability (and technology) to explore comets reflects another side of this. The comets, cosmologists theorized, were created in the early formation of the solar system. And if this were true, then we would expect certain types of features and makeup of these objects moving through space. The Electric Universe Model claims that these objects were freed from existing stars by massive bolts of lightning like electricity. But when we start observing the actual makeup of these objects - especially up close - we discover that their makeup is consistent with formation during the earliest periods of the solar system - and not at all with some sort of explosion freeing these bodies from the sun (in the electric universe model, all of these objects in space in the solar system were violently ejected from the sun). That formation is built into the structure of these objects. And we see this even better now that have started sending probes to comets and other objects that are very distant from our planet. At any rate - whether or not there is dark matter is not a question that the electric universe model can answer - because there aren't any real questions that the electric universe model can answer. There is no hypothesis dependent on that model that can be answered by some sort of falsifiable test. There is no data that can be used to support this. So we get a video like this that says that the universe has a "smell" - and this becomes support for the model - that should tell us something - both about the model and the sort of desperation that exists to find some sort of evidence that supports it.

Matt Finn - if you go to the Youtube page, and follow the links, you will discover that he is the author of a book: Breath of Life - a self published science fiction novel. In the introduction to that Book, he describes himself like this: The author is not an expert. This doesn't necessarily make him a hack, a fraud, or a pseudo-science. But, his association with The Thunderbolts Project (which is the primary proponent of the Electric Universe Model) is what makes him (arguably) a hack, a fraud, and a pseudo-scientist. The problem with the Electric Universe Model is that to date, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that supports it. And when we get to the events that could provide support - it simply isn't there. A good example would be the samples taken in the 2005 Deep Impact mission. Even more important was the data collected about Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P) in 2016. The data collected here generally supports our traditional understanding of the formation of the solar system - it does not provide anything close to the radical break from that understanding that would be required in the Electric Universe Model. When we look at the predictions that have been made - in particular those made in the lead up to the 2005 Deep Impact Mission, we find that they were all wrong. We did find significant ice in the comet. There was no electrical discharge towards the exploration craft. There was no unexpected radiation emission, and so on. When the model produces testable predictions that actually work - then we can start talking about evidence here. But as it stands, I think there is no real reason to accept it. I realize that the model might have some appeal for certain small groups of LDS members - I remember back in the 1980s when Anthony Larson stirred up interest in Velikovsky and his cosmic catstrophism. But ... none of this can be called science.

It is true that my simplistic explanation isn't as complex as reality but - when you start talking about "pull" you are making a categorical mistake. There is no "pull". This was the whole point of the idea of entropy. Objects don't pull things - an object curves space-time, and other objects tend to want to follow the curve. Gravity isn't something that takes an effect in any situation - because gravity isn't a force - it is simply the label we give to the process of objects (mass or energy) following the curve of space-time in an entropic fashion. On top of this, the curving of space-time is a local thing. A single object doesn't curve all of space-time in the universe - only locally (relativity makes this reasonably certain). So, while the Higgs field is present everywhere, the Higgs field isn't gravity - and the curvature of space-time is a local phenomenon (which doesn't mean that really large dense objects like super-massive black holes don't create correspondingly large curvatures). The observable universe is mostly flat. And the reality is that we are not experiencing the effects of the curvature caused by all of the other objects in the universe. The "reach" of gravity seems quite finite.

Gravity works like this in these theories - Think of the universe as the surface of a very large balloon. When an object with mass or an object with energy is introduced to the surface of the balloon, the rubber surface dimples making a depression - or, in terms of quantum mechanics, it curves space-time. When two of these objects are close enough that the dimples overlap, the objects move towards each other, following the curve in the space-time. if you stretch out the balloon rubber, and drop a couple of marbles on it, the marbles will roll towards each other until they are adjacent (and will leave a larger dimple in the rubber). Gravity is the term that we use to describe the objects moving towards each other through the curved space-time - the curved space-time itself isn't particularly visible to us, but its effects are. But what should be reasonably clear is that gravity itself isn't a force, but a condition of two curves in space-time interacting with each other in such a way that it causes mass and energy to move. The thing about the interval 10E-43 seconds is this - prior to that interval, the universe (all of it, everywhere, at the same time) was incredibly hot - so hot that subatomic particles could not form - and hot enough that the subatomic field that causes mass to exist (the Higgs field) could not exist. Within that interval, the universe is expanding at super fast speeds - but as it does so, it cools - and when it is cool enough, the Higgs field comes into existence everywhere. It is the Higgs field that gives most particles their mass. Think of this as a magnetic field with a polarized ion moving into it. There is resistance, and this resistance translates into what we call mass. Two particles that we know of are completely unaffected by the Higgs field. Those two particles (photons and gluons) have no mass at all. We consider them to be energy - and they are subject to the quantum rules describing interactions with curves in space-time and so we observe that gravity affects them (even though they have no mass). So, there is no gravity before that interval of time when the Higgs field comes into existence - because the Higgs field cannot exist with the other factors we believe were there. At any rate, this is the rough version of the quantum explanation for gravity. Entropy occurs with gravity for two reasons - entropy is required for gravity to come into existence (the Higgs field becoming operational is part of this), and entropy exists because even though the gathering of mass reverses some aspects of entropy, it results in heat and momentum - both of which represent an increase in entropy, and both of which occur at rates that exceed the reversal of entropy represented by the gathering of mass and energy caused by the curvature of space-time caused by matter and energy. My favorite explanation to date is that our universe is the event horizon of the supernova of a fourth dimensional star.

Then it isn't really a response to the CFR, is it ... I didn't misread you. But, whatever.

You are missing my point. You suggested you were doing this: What you didn't do was to point out that the quote you provided had nothing to do with the current beliefs of the LDS Church (which presumably was the discussion going on). So your CFR wasn't in good faith - you are just playing little games here.

The first formal response was published by Elder Penrose in the Improvement Era in 1902: In the October General Conference, President Kimball made this comment: That was pretty much the end of it in terms of orthodoxy in the LDS Church. Whether you side with the various fundamentalists groups in your interpretation is up to you - but it is not something that is considered acceptable in the LDS Church today. It certainly isn't a new discussion, and I doubt that you are really that unaware of all of this. The problem, of course, is in your suggestion that this somehow represents mainstream LDS theology and doctrine in terms of Adam and the nature of his body. As Mark E. Peterson said (since you bring him up): Has anyone actively taught Adam-God among the leaders of the Church in your lifetime? If not, it's not really much of a reference is it ... are they really the same Adam?

And probably we should provide the extra context from this comment, right? President Young continued: Just as interesting was President Woodruff's summary which he wrote that evening in his journal: What an interesting interpretation - that eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil would make even a celestial being (like God the Father) mortal. And while we could certainly opine on the subject - that the Adam being referenced here by President Young was God the Father, and the literal father (in the flesh) of Jesus Christ - the reality is that whatever President Young meant, it has been decided as a heterodox idea for the Church and one of the great heresies. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie described it: So let's not get this all mixed up with the current discussion ...

I think that it's good to remember that young earth creationism only enters LDS theology under the influence of Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, and his friendship with Joseph Fielding Smith. The last formal statement from the leadership of the Church on some of these issues (1931) is that there is no formal position on the question of death before the fall, the existence of Pre-Adamites, and the age of the earth. The idea that the earth itself was born, was baptized, will die, and be resurrected is theologically questionable (at best). The notion of the flood as a baptism was introduced more as a way to defend the notion of a global flood (in the context of that young earth creationism). It doesn't hold much water for those who accept the scientific perspective provided by geological sciences. As that 1931 statement noted: For me, I think that the role played by the narrative of the Garden of Eden has largely been replaced by the doctrine of the pre-existence. Both the scriptural narrative and the temple narrative of the garden should be understood as primarily figurative in that regard. To try to draw out these kinds of facts is go far beyond what the texts and rites are intending to teach us. I also think that we should recognize the value that comes from the scientific knowledge coming from geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology in understand the development of our human natures and the environment in which we find ourselves. It is in these questions that involve subjects that science is particularly well suited for investigation that we should recognize that these historical narratives should be understood - not as some absolute knowledge - but rather to be understood in light of contemporary and limited knowledge.

@longview This is a violation of one of those core rules of this forum: