Satan Not Neccesary

[longview]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Technically, there isn't any doctrine that says the Garden of Eden was terrestrial. That said, I actually conceptualize it as thus myself. But, I don't think the entire planet was the terrestrial, just a localized segment, a "garden" as it were.

Your perspective is fragmentary and inconsistent. When the Fall occurred, not only did Adam and Eve become mortal but the entire planet became corrupt and violent and chaotic. You are skirting around the fact that "The Gods" cannot organize a debased and carnal telestial world. They had to begin with an entire paradisiacal planet devoid of chaos and death. With the Garden of Eden "set up" to offer Adam and Eve a mutually exclusive choice for maintaining the utopian paradisiacal state forever XOR initiating the Fall.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He clearly knew what needed to be done. And Eve must have known it, too. And knowing what to do, what would stop them from acting upon that knowledge while still in the Garden? They were husband and wife, after all, so it would have been perfectly acceptable for them to do so.

I agree completely with this above.

Quote

But regardless of that, their bodies were not only immortal, they were flesh and bone, not flesh and blood. Their circulatory systems had no blood until they ate that fruit. 

I think the “no blood in immortal bodies” is speculation.  “Flesh and bones” just doesn’t mention blood, it also doesn’t mention cartilage, tendons, brain tissue, nerves, organ tissue, and more.  Are we assuming those also don’t exist in immortal bodies?

The only thing revealed in scripture that specifically refers to excluding blood iirc also refers to flesh, so it must mean something besides immortal bodies can’t include blood.

Quote

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15%3A50&version=NIV

Edited yesterday at 12:22 AM by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

I don't give it (old planets being recycled) a credence though. Doesn't fit any of the observational data.

I have company that just arrived, so I had AI polish it up for me as I don’t have time to reread and check stuff, the points are all mine:

The heat and energy involved in bringing that much mass together would be a problem if the goal was to preserve all those individual pieces intact. Once you have anything approaching enough mass to make a planet, gravity takes over. Everything is pulling on everything else, material is falling and colliding, and all that motion and compression generates enormous heat. You’d expect melting, mixing, and eventually differentiation, with heavier material sinking toward the center and lighter material moving outward. So if God wanted to keep the pieces, fossils, geological structures, etc. intact, He would actually have to prevent many of the natural processes that would happen when you bring that much mass together.

And what would be the benefit of keeping the bits and pieces intact anyway? If God was going to use material from old planets, why not bring the material together and let it go through the natural processes that would occur when enough mass forms a planet? He could accelerate or direct those processes if necessary. Gravity, heat, melting, differentiation, etc. would actually help produce a functioning planet.

Plus, where the different planets were joined together, you’d expect some sign of differences. Different planets should have different geological and chemical histories. We’d potentially see differences in minerals, isotopes, radiometric ages, etc. Instead, Earth’s rocks show remarkably interconnected geological relationships.

The fossil problem seems even bigger. If the fossils came from other planets, then the organisms represented by them would have lived and evolved on those planets with likely different chemical signatures.  Why would fossils from completely different worlds happen to fit together into a coherent sequence that looks like the history of life on Earth?

Of course, God could do all of this. That’s not really my argument. My question is: why would He?

He would have to bring pieces of other planets here after having first arranged identical to our own solar environments for each, preserve them in spite of the enormous forces involved in assembling a planet, keep their fossils and geological histories intact, make the different pieces compatible, and then make the resulting planet function as though it had developed as one coherent world.

That’s a massive amount of extra work to accomplish what exactly?

If the purpose is to make a young Earth look old, then we’re left with an uncomfortable theological problem: God would have deliberately constructed the physical evidence so that its natural interpretation would be a false history. Why?  To tease us?

If God uses natural processes we don’t yet understand to accomplish things we call miracles, that’s one thing. But deliberately making the Earth look as though it has a history it doesn’t actually have seems like something quite different.

So I’m not saying God couldn’t make Earth from prefabricated pieces like a jigsaw puzzle. I’m asking why He would choose such a complicated process when He could simply use the natural processes involved in planetary formation—accelerating or directing them if necessary—and produce the coherent, functioning planet we actually observe.

Edited yesterday at 12:11 AM by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You are skirting around the fact that "The Gods" cannot organize a debased and carnal telestial world

The Telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory, a kingdom of God.  Not sure you should be using “Telestial” here linking it with debased and carnal.

Edited yesterday at 12:26 AM by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

They had to begin with an entire paradisiacal planet devoid of chaos and death.

I can see devoid of sin, but there is nothing inherently evil about death as long as life follows from it imo.  Same with chaos, especially if one understands that what looks chaotic in the world has underlying order, follows certain patterns or the earth itself would not exist in any form.

[teddyaware]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory, a kingdom of God.  Not sure you should be using “Telestial” here linking it with debased and carnal.

There are two primary usages of the term telestial in the church. One use refers to the state of this fallen world so grievously impacted by physical and spiritual death. The second use of the term refers to a kingdom of immortal heavenly glory inhabited by resurrected beings who have received a remission of their earthly sins, and who enjoy constant communion with the Holy Spirit and visitations from heavenly messengers. This fallen telestial earth and the post-resurrection Telestial kingdom of heavenly glory are vastly different entities. For the most part, the only thing these two realms have in common is that they both exist in a condition distant from the immediate presence of God, one much more so than the other.

Edited yesterday at 01:07 AM by teddyaware

[Nofear]

13 hours ago, longview said:

Your perspective is fragmentary and inconsistent. When the Fall occurred, not only did Adam and Eve become mortal but the entire planet became corrupt and violent and chaotic.

Ooh. A pun (when advocating precursor planets)!

"the entire planet" -> I reject this assertion. Individuals with different states of glory are able to interact with environments of different states of glory ... that's scriptural (coupled with modern LDS interpretation). Nothing says that two environments of different states of glory can't be spatially adjacent.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the “no blood in immortal bodies” is speculation.  “Flesh and bones” just doesn’t mention blood, it also doesn’t mention cartilage, tendons, brain tissue, nerves, organ tissue, and more.  Are we assuming those also don’t exist in immortal bodies?

It may be speculation, yes, but speculation of a high order. I first heard of it while I was on my mission in Germany in 1973. The priesthood study manual we were using was a compilation from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith (or his father, Joseph F. Smith). In the lesson about the Fall he wrote that after the Fall blood came into their bodies. I've been trying to track this study manual down to verify who wrote it. So far no luck, but it was definitely in that priesthood study manual. I remember this distinctly because we had a recent convert in that meeting, who, when this came up, couldn't deal with it, and never returned to church. 

I happen to feel that this particular speculation may be true. Although at the time I read about it I looked rather askance at it, it makes sense to me now, at least, and in my previous post I explained why. That particular thought I expressed about why Eve might have been unable to conceive actually occurred to me while I was writing that post. 

I shan't hang my salvation upon it, though.

Is JFSjr a reliable source? For most things, I think. His more secular pronouncements are more "problematic."

On two separate occasions Joseph Fielding Smith expressed doubt about space exploration. In "Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2" he wrote: "it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet." It happens that I have a copy of A2GQ, and it does not contain that statement. But mine is a recent edition, not the 1957 original, so it may have been redacted out of the book. 

In a talk given at a stake conference in Hawaii in 1961 it is reported he said: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." This was just shortly before Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth, and 8 years before Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon. At the 1970 press conference where he was introduced as President of the Church, he was asked about these statements; Smith reportedly responded, "Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?"

14 hours ago, Calm said:

The only thing revealed in scripture that specifically refers to excluding blood iirc also refers to flesh, so it must mean something besides immortal bodies can’t include blood.

Agreed as to scripture. But I still can't escape the feeling that resurrected beings have no need of blood. 

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the “no blood in immortal bodies” is speculation.  “Flesh and bones” just doesn’t mention blood, it also doesn’t mention cartilage, tendons, brain tissue, nerves, organ tissue, and more.  Are we assuming those also don’t exist in immortal bodies?

I have finally found where JFSjr got the "no blood in immortal bodies" thing. Two places in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." 

"As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood."

[longview]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

"the entire planet" -> I reject this assertion. Individuals with different states of glory are able to interact with environments of different states of glory ... that's scriptural (coupled with modern LDS interpretation). Nothing says that two environments of different states of glory can't be spatially adjacent.

Did you miss Teddyaware's post immediately before your post? Please have a look.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So far no luck, but it was definitely in that priesthood study manual.

I do not doubt it.  Lots of speculation, some horrible (past Old Testament study guide on creation) has been published in manuals.  Thankfully the Church has been correcting that over time. 

Joseph Fielding Smith unfortunately presented some of his own speculation as doctrine and rejection of such as false doctrine when even that speculation contradicted previous prophets’ positions or at least were extensively published under their direction.

So while I recognized it has been taught and likely still is, I see no reason to accept it as truth myself since it is not consistently or logically explained.  Nor is my salvation dependent on that detail. 
 

https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/

Quote

Other Church leaders were quite concerned about this paradigm and Smith’s expression of it, as LDS young adults at the time saw science-religion conflict as one of the top serious issues of their day. Smith’s expression was not only unhelpful, it was wrong. Talmage’s talk and pamphlet a year later was a direct rebuttal…. Other Church leaders were quite concerned about this paradigm and Smith’s expression of it, as LDS young adults at the time saw science-religion conflict as one of the top serious issues of their day. Smith’s expression was not only unhelpful, it was wrong. Talmage’s talk and pamphlet a year later was a direct rebuttal….

 

Talmage strongly implied that Smith engaged in “faulty interpretation” when he read scripture as providing scientific information, reliable or not….

Talmage’s widely-published talk— tens of thousands of pamphlets distributed,  reprinted in the Church’s British magazine, and translated into German— served as a direct counter-balance to Smith’s explicit claims and implicit paradigm of the relationship between science and scripture.  Smith’s response? He wrote “false doctrine” across his copy of the pamphlet.

This talk was also given in the Tabernacle, iirc.

I can accept Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet and still believe he taught some false doctrine.  He established that precedent for me.  (See bold in quote)

Edited 7 hours ago by Calm

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Did you miss Teddyaware's post immediately before your post? Please have a look.

No I didn't miss it. There is indeed a difference between a [T/T/C] glory and [T/T/C] kingdom. At least for me, the former is physics. The latter is a social scenario built upon/with/around that physics. Consequently, I can believe the Garden of Eden abided a Terrestrial glory but it is not the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Even setting all that aside, that's a different question than whether an entire planet must be the same thing or whether or not there can be localized variations.

Edited 7 hours ago by Nofear

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have finally found where JFSjr got the "no blood in immortal bodies" thing. Two places in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." 

"As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood."

He quotes the Bible that says flesh and blood are corrupt, but then allows flesh to be quickened even though it’s labeled as corrupt.  Why not blood?

I believe this is a case of him reasoning, not revelation as he is showing the reasoning he did.  I think his reasoning is faulty to make that conclusion.  Not claiming there is blood, my position is we don’t have enough info for that conclusion.  I don’t believe we actually have that much info on our actual eternal physical bodies’ operation.  What can be perceived and understood by mortal eyes even in a quickened state may be a very limited view of the reality.  

Blood is symbolic of life and is used to purify.  We drink a symbol of blood as part of our purification/union with God ritual, the Sacrament.  How can blood be inherently corrupt to the point it can’t function in a kingdom of glory or even why would blood be seen symbolically as inherently corrupt by God and yet he cleanses us of sin with his blood, possibly symbolically, possibly literally.

I understand that blood is also a sign of mortality, which an be seen as a condition due to physical corruption.  But the fact that is can symbolize both corruption and what purifies us of corruption indicates to me blood itself is not inherently corrupt.

Edited 4 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One use refers to the state of this fallen world so grievously impacted by physical and spiritual death

References please.  The search function isn’t working for me or rather the links aren’t working and the only thing for “telestial” that is coming appears to be referring to the telestial kingdom or its glory.

I know general membership (what would be the technical term for those not General Authorities or Officers since “lay” doesn’t really work since our leadership isn’t trained in seminaries, our male general membership are ordained, and now most adults are called as “ministers”) sometimes use it this way, but don’t remember it being published by the Church this way and if so, seems like it leads to unnecessary confusion, contrary to scripture, of what the kingdom actually is, a wonderful and pure place, not a place full of wickedness or corruption.

Not debating its use at this point, just want the info to know what my expectations and understanding of the word should be.

If it’s used officially this way, I will just add it to salvation and other words that have gotten confusing due to imprecise use in scripture or by leaders in our faith and try to remember to include context so it’s clear which I am talking about so no one is confused (I will always use it for the kingdom and related, but I don’t expect people to track my definitions, lol).

If it’s not used officially to mean the fallen world, then I will probably continue to point out this usage contradicts scripture and might be best to be avoided to avoid confusion as Telestial is already confusing enough to nonmembers as a unique word in LDS vernacular.

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have finally found where JFSjr got the "no blood in immortal bodies" thing. Two places in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." 

"As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood."

The first quote is from a 12 May 1844 discourse.  It is what Thomas Bullock recorded.  There is another account from George Laub that is similar but different at the same time - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-12-may-1844-as-reported-by-george-laub/4

Quote

Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god or the kingdom that god inhabits But the flesh without the blood and the spirit of god flowing in the veins in the stead of the blood for blood is the part of the body that causes corruption therefore we must be changd in the twinkling of an Eye or have to lay down these tabernacles and leave the blood vanish away therefore Jesus Christ left his blood to atone for the sins of the world that he might asend into the presents of the father for god dwels in flaming flames and he is a consuming fire he will consume all that is uncleen and unholy and we could not abide his presents unless pure spirits in us. for the Blood is the corruptible part of the tabernacles then we will be able to goe in the presents of god

Kind of explicit that blood is the corruptible part, not flesh.

 

The second quote is from a 20 March 1842 discourse.  It was what Wilford Woodruff recorded - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4

Quote

As concerning the resurrection I will mer[e]ly say that all men will come from the grave as they lay lie down, whether old or young their will not be added unto the[i]r stature one cubit neither taken from it, All being raised by the power of God having the Spirit of God in their bodies & not Blood

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

The first quote is from a 12 May 1844 discourse.  It is what Thomas Bullock recorded.  There is another account from George Laub that is similar but different at the same time - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-12-may-1844-as-reported-by-george-laub/4

Kind of explicit that blood is the corruptible part, not flesh.

 

The second quote is from a 20 March 1842 discourse.  It was what Wilford Woodruff recorded - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4

 

Interesting.  I wonder how he got there, revelation or reason or a combination. 
 

Added:  he does say this not long after that quote:

“I never told you I was perfect—

47

 but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—”

But he’s ending his talk so it might be a presentation of his authority rather than an identification of everything he just said as revelation, like adding credentials.
 

How Joseph himself typically viewed his teachings/comments is something I really should study more, going through his works over time, but that likely won’t these days (have too little dopamine it seems to be motivated much, I need a wife/mother/assistant to push me to do…)

Edited 2 hours ago by Calm