“Yonder Is Matter Unorganized”; Why Joseph Was A Visionary.

[LeSellers]

The notion that the Christian God progressed from a mortal man to a God and that we can do the same certainly qualifies as original.

It is "original" only if you reject the idea we see from the ECFs of theosis and deification. While they may not have spoken of this in exactly the same terms and from the same references as we modern Saints do, and may not have believed this in exactly the same way we do today, Joseph was hardly the first to advance the "notion".

And, lest we forget, the Bible does not explicitly reject the idea, and there are a myriad of hints that point to its being possible. Not least among these is the appellation "Father" applied to God in relationship to us. (Of course, many Christians reject the idea of God's being anyone's "Father", including Jesus Christ, but that is there concern, not ours.)

Lehi

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[rodheadlee]

None of this is an issue for Latter-day Saints. We accept that God reveals truths to all people, and I, personally, have no problem believing that Swedenborg had some divine inspiration in developing his theology about heaven.

I totally agree with this statement. I believe portions of the truth can be found among all peoples and religions.

[Vance]

It is "original" only if you reject the idea we see from the ECFs of theosis and deification. While they may not have spoken of this in exactly the same terms and from the same references as we modern Saints do, and may not have believed this in exactly the same way we do today. Joseph was hardly the first to advance the "notion".

And, lest we forget, the Bible does not explicitly reject the idea, and there are a myriad of hints that point to its being possible. Not least among these is the appellation "Father" applied to God in relationship to us. (Of course, many Christians reject the idea of God's being anyone's "Father", including Jesus Christ, but that is there concern, not ours.)

Lehi

Bowman berated Dan Peterson for suggesting that Joseph restored this idea because it was never lost and now Bowman claims that it is original.

I am sure Bowman will have an explanation for us.

[ged1650]

Joseph Smith did not know about the Big Bang Theory. He did contemplate the age of the earth at 5 billion yoa. This is far older than any from his time frame postulated. The Big Bang is not ex nihilo. The bang comes from a singularity. The singularity is .... no one knows but it has intense mass consequently it is matter, very unorganized. So Joseph, through revelation, know the earth and universe were very old.

Ged

PS I am 200 miles from my library. The discussion of the age of the earth occured in the Nauvoo period. I read about in Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Ehat and Cook. I don't have my copy handy.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You made four scientific assertions. 1. The universe is billions of years old. 2. It originated in the Big Bang. 3. The Big Bang required preexisting atoms. 4. Man was made from existing materials. The first two are correct but Joseph Smith does not seem to have known about them. The third is incorrect. The fourth is biblically correct but has always been the view of orthodox Christians; modern scientists hold differing views on how this occurred, with most favoring biological evolution of man from non-man (a position I reject).

As do I, but not all modern scientists believe this...the time line for all is certainly in question. BTW the as do I, means I believe man was created in God's image. Which is the paradox since Trinitarians cannot.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

JS claimed that the earth was 2&1/2 billion years old. His methodology is wrong but the fact remains that he did claim the earth was billions of years old.

[mfbukowski]

The fact that a great deal of mormon focused "ministries" appear to have been drawn from the smorgasbord of anti-mormon ideas popular in the early nineteenth century at least raises some legitimate questions about the claim to have scholarly knowledge about the Latter-day Saints.

...all I can say is that Joseph must have had one heck of a library to have drawn on during his early years. Perahps he was granted a celestial Iphone and had access to Google?

[mfbukowski]

Pa Pa,

By the way, you had also stated:

First, Joseph Smith does not seem to have had any inkling that the universe is billions of years old.

Second, the universe did not require preexisting atoms from which to be created. The Big Bang was a singularity with no space or time "before" it, and brought atoms into existence. It literally is creation ex nihilo. On this issue, see, for example, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), especially chapters 7 and 8.

Third, orthodox Christians have always believed that God created the first human beings, Adam and Eve, from existing materials (the "dust of the ground"). However, these existing materials came into existence earlier in the creation period; they were not eternally existing matter.

Unfortunately you are ignoring what the likely cause of the singularity was, the Big Crunch,

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Big_Crunch

In other words, God might have had a Father.

And of course it appears that Creedal Christians have no theology whatsoever about what God was doing floating around for an eternity before the ex nihilo creation, or why he decided to create us in the first place.

Just a small hole in their understanding.

Edited November 23, 2011 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

DaddyG:

Nah. Just a time machine.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

DaddyG:

Nah. Just a time machine.

I wonder could he move forward and aft in time?

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

At least in theory he could have done both. But I see no way around the logical paradoxes such a machine would produce. Say; IF I built such a machine, could I go back in time and kill my own grandfather so that I would never have been born?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

At least in theory he could have done both. But I see no way around the logical paradoxes such a machine would produce. Say; IF I built such a machine, could I go back in time and kill my own grandfather so that I would never have been born?

Oh that one is easy..."Back to the Future", Marty (Michael J Fox) almost prevented his own birth. That was a squeaker. Woo

[Vance]

And of course it appears that Creedal Christians have no theology whatsoever about what God was doing floating around for an eternity before the ex nihilo creation, or why he decided to create us in the first place.

Just a small hole in their understanding.

And what caused Him to change (being unchangeable) from eternal indolence to suddenly working hard for 6 days?

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

Marty was just along for the ride.

[altersteve]

Unfortunately you are ignoring what the likely cause of the singularity was, the Big Crunch,

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Big_Crunch

In other words, God might have had a Father.

And of course it appears that Creedal Christians have no theology whatsoever about what God was doing floating around for an eternity before the ex nihilo creation, or why he decided to create us in the first place.

Just a small hole in their understanding.

I don't think a Creedal Christian has ever been able to adequately explain this to me. Fortunately, LDS doctrine and science have the answer.

[zerinus]

Many religious teachers before Joseph Smith denied creation ex nihilo. An excellent example, and one that is quite relevant in this context, is Emanuel Swedenborg. "Swedenborg unequivocally denies creation ex nihilo" (Emanuel Swedenborg, Divine Love and Wisdom, trans. George F. Dole, intro. Gregory R. Johnson (Swedenborg Foundation, 2003), 27 (see there for direct quotations from the book).

Maybe; but he also denied the pre-existence of matter.

This is not the only similarity between Swedenborg's doctrine and Joseph's Smith's. Here are some additional similarities I have noted:

There are three heavens likened to the sun, moon, and stars; the highest of these heavens is the celestial heaven.

True.

The celestial kingdom itself has three divisions.

I don’t recall reading that. Can you provide a reference?

Marriage in or for heaven is necessary to attain life in the celestial heaven.

As far as I recall Swedenborg taught that marriage existed in all of heaven. He didn’t distinguish between the three heavens.

Priestly robes are worn in the marriage for heavenly life.

Not sure about that either. If you are alluding to references to temple marriages, I don’t think it is applicable.

The world depends on a balance or equilibrium between opposing forces (spiritual—physical, good—evil).

True; but not sure how it equates with LDS doctrine.

God is (a) man; . . .

Definitely not correct. Swedenborg taught that there was absolutely only one God, and that one God was Jesus Christ—and He was “Man,” not “a man”.

Edited November 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Rob Bowman:

JS claimed that the earth was 2&1/2 billion years old. His methodology is wrong but the fact remains that he did claim the earth was billions of years old.

Okay. CFR, please.

[altersteve]

True; but not sure how it equates with LDS doctrine.

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."

[altersteve]

Second, the universe did not require preexisting atoms from which to be created. The Big Bang was a singularity with no space or time "before" it, and brought atoms into existence. It literally is creation ex nihilo.

So there was literally nothing, and then nothing just blew up for no reason?

[zerinus]

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."

That is not equivalent to Swedenborg's teachings on the "equilibrium" of the opposing forces.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

"equilibrium"

I thought that was John Nash?

Edited November 29, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You asked:

So there was literally nothing, and then nothing just blew up for no reason?

No. I did not say that the universe's beginning had no reason. God caused it to come into existence. That was the reason. And "nothing just blew up" is not an accurate statement of the idea of the Big Bang (which, by the way, is itself a nickname given to the theory by an opponent). The theory is that space, time, matter, and energy all originated at a "singularity" that had no preexisting material cause (i.e., it was not simply a rearrangement of existing materials). The moment of the universe's beginning was literally "time zero" of the material world. This should not be misunderstood to mean that the universe has no efficient cause; it does, namely, God.

Edited to add: Steve, I took your use of the word "reason" in the popular sense of a cause. If you meant a "reason" in another sense, say, the purpose or intention for which the event was caused to happen, then that would be a somewhat different question. A very brief answer to such a question would be that God caused the world to come into existence for the purpose of providing an environment in which beings that he created could experience his love and bring him glory and joy. But again, I think you were asking about the cause or origin of the universe, not its purpose.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[mfbukowski]

I don't think a Creedal Christian has ever been able to adequately explain this to me. Fortunately, LDS doctrine and science have the answer.

This is of course the problem.

We answer questions they don't even think to ask.

[mfbukowski]

God caused it to come into existence. That was the reason.

That's evasive. Actually that would be the "cause" according to Creedal Christians

It is not a "reason". A "reason" would answer the question "Why did God create the world?"

But I suppose you are ignoring me.

I really don't care, it just allows me to comment unopposed. If that is what you want, so be it, it is fine with me.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

See the article “Did Emanuel Swedenborg Influence LDS Doctrine?” by Craig Miller.