Peppermint Patty Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son created them' date=' which is mine Only Begotten. [b']Moses 1:33I love this verse because it describes a universe that completely exceeded the science and the known cosmos of the 1830's. In fact, it wasn't until the 1950's that we discovered our milky way galaxy wasn't alone in the universe. Now we know that the universe contains over 200 billion galaxies just like our milky way galaxy and each of these 200 billion galaxies contain hundreds of billions of stars.Literally, more stars than every grain of sand in every beach on planet earth. To put this in perspective, I would encourage you to watch 2 minutes of the following National Geographic video. Start watching at the 16 minute mark to the 18 minute mark. I guarantee that you will be amazed and in awe.
Freedom Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Edwin Hubble was responsible for us discovering galaxies I think in the 1920's or so. It was after Einstein's theory of relativity. Although nobody considered the concept of galaxies, they did feel there were countless stars out there. It was just assumed that it was just one large splattering of stars throughout the universe, rather than groupings of galaxies. So I am not sure how much of a bulls eye it was for Joseph to come up with the idea of countless stars. A guy named Messier in the 1700's started classifying objects in the sky but I am not certain what the common thought was about how many stars there were in the sky or if anybody considered that there would be more planets out there.
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) No. This isn't a bull's eye.Many people in Joseph Smith's day believed in the existence of numerous worlds.Many also assumed that some of these worlds were populated.Some even believed that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for the sins of those other worlds. Sound familiar?You should read Emmanuel Swedenborg. He was brilliant, and a major influence upon American thinking in the 19th century. Personally, I think Swedenborg's teachings are far more brilliant than Joseph Smith's ever was. But that is just me. Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed 2
Duncan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 No. This isn't a bull's eye.Many people in Joseph Smith's day believed in the existence of numerous worlds.Many also assumed that some of these worlds were populated.Some even believed that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for the sins of those other worlds. Sound familiar?You should read Emmanuel Swedenborg. He was brilliant, and a major influence upon American thinking in the 19th century. Personally, I think Swedenborg's teachings are far more brilliant than Joseph Smith's ever was. But that is just me.The Gospel offers a better way of life
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 The Gospel offers a better way of lifeWhose Gospel? Yours?
Duncan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Whose Gospel? Yours?haha! no, Jesus Christ's, he is the good news, the way, the truth and the life, not anyone else brilliant or not 2
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 haha! no, Jesus Christ's, he is the good news, the way, the truth and the life, not anyone else brilliant or notJesus is pretty cool. Certainly a guy ahead of his time. What percentage of Swedenborg's writings have you read to know that Jesus' gospel is better?
Duncan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Jesus is pretty cool. Certainly a guy ahead of his time.What percentage of Swedenborg's writings have you read to know that Jesus' gospel is better?I read some of his stuff some years ago but honestly haven't retained much, although I didn't think he was offering up a new gospel so to speak )but as I say I haven't read everything he ever wrote) and I take the little phrase to heart "truth is truth where tis found whether or Christian or heathen ground"
zerinus Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Jesus is pretty cool. Certainly a guy ahead of his time.What percentage of Swedenborg's writings have you read to know that Jesus' gospel is better?If you knew much about Swedenborg, you would know that he taught what he believed was Jesus' gospel.
LDSToronto Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I love this verse because it describes a universe that completely exceeded the science and the known cosmos of the 1830's. In fact, it wasn't until the 1950's that we discovered our milky way galaxy wasn't alone in the universe. Now we know that the universe contains over 200 billion galaxies just like our milky way galaxy and each of these 200 billion galaxies contain hundreds of billions of stars.A bulls-eye - no. 8 of the 9 planets in our solar system had been discovered well before Joseph was born - in fact, the Chinese were observing Jupiter's moons some 300 years prior to Christ's birth.Joseph's grand governing star model of the universe is also based on 18th century (and earlier) notions of the nature of the universe and the sun, which are now known to be false.Joseph's cosmology is a rather weak leg to stand on. Though, I will agree, the universe is a fascinating place.H.
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) If you knew much about Swedenborg, you would know that he taught what he believed was Jesus' gospel.Yes. I am quite aware of Swedenborg's Christianity. I am also of aware of Joseph Smith's. It was Duncan who set Swedenborg's teachings against Jesus'. Again... Swedenborg was far more brilliant than Joseph Smith ever was, as was Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others. But that is not to say that Joseph Smith wasn't a genious in his own right. He was.Bbut back to the topic of this thread. No. I wouldn't call the Book of Moses passage (mentioning "worlds without number") a bull's eye. Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed
ERMD Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Yes. I am quite aware of Swedenborg's Christianity. I am also of aware of Joseph Smith's. It was Duncan who set Swedenborg's teachings against Jesus'. Again... Swedenborg was far more brilliant than Joseph Smith ever was, as was Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others.They certainly were--which is what makes Joseph's accomplishments and legacy all the more remarkable.
Duncan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Yes. I am quite aware of Swedenborg's Christianity. I am also of aware of Joseph Smith's. It was Duncan who set Swedenborg's teachings against Jesus'. Again... Swedenborg was far more brilliant than Joseph Smith ever was, as was Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others.no I didn't! I'll get you at recess
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 They certainly were--which is what makes Joseph's accomplishments and legacy all the more remarkable.Neither Swedenborg nor Emerson desired to form a religious institution. They were interested in sharing ideas and enlightening minds. Would you say that Joseph Smith's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson’s? I sure wouldn't
wenglund Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Neither Swedenborg nor Emerson desired to form a religious institution. They were interested in sharing ideas and enlightening minds. Would you say that Joseph Smith's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson’s? I sure wouldn'tIn other words: "Yea...so there!!!" LOLThanks, -Wade Englund-
zerinus Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Yes. I am quite aware of Swedenborg's Christianity. I am also of aware of Joseph Smith's. It was Duncan who set Swedenborg's teachings against Jesus'. Again... Swedenborg was far more brilliant than Joseph Smith ever was, as was Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others. But that is not to say that Joseph Smith wasn't a genious in his own right. He was.Joseph Smith didn't claim to be "brilliant," he just claimed to be prophet of God. Oddly enough, that is more or less what Swedenborg claimed too. If you are going to "compare" them, the only logical comparison would have to fall within the sphere of activity which they both claimed for themselves--i.e. that of a prophetic calling.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I love this verse because it describes a universe that completely exceeded the science and the known cosmos of the 1830's. In fact, it wasn't until the 1950's that we discovered our milky way galaxy wasn't alone in the universe. Now we know that the universe contains over 200 billion galaxies just like our milky way galaxy and each of these 200 billion galaxies contain hundreds of billions of stars.Literally, more stars than every grain of sand in every beach on planet earth. To put this in perspective, I would encourage you to watch 2 minutes of the following National Geographic video. Start watching at the 16 minute mark to the 18 minute mark. I guarantee that you will be amazed and in awe. Indeed "yonder there is space, let us build a world".
zerinus Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Neither Swedenborg nor Emerson desired to form a religious institution. They were interested in sharing ideas and enlightening minds. Would you say that Joseph Smith's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson’s? I sure wouldn'tI would say so, yes. Swedenborg has always been, and still remains, a relatively unknown figure except among his small band of believers, and the even smaller circle of academics who are interested in that subject. Joseph Smith set in motion a movement which he himself predicted would revolutionize the world, and which has been going from strength to strength ever since, and its influence is being increasingly felt in the world.Emerson's thoughts don't fall into the same category of either Joseph Smith or Swedenborg; and you cannot compare their "influence" in the same way. When you talk about "influential," you need to specify what kind of "influence" you are talking about. A cookery writer my have been very influential in her sphere of activity, but it would be wrong to compare her kind of "influential" with that of Billy Graham for example. 1
Nofear Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Some of you may be familiar with Giordano Bruno, or at least heard his name. He was excommunicated for several reasons but one of the charges against him was "claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity." Indeed, Bruno taught:I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the Earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, and half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions.— Giordano Bruno, 'On the Cause, Principle, and Unity', 5th dialogueI wouldn't necessarily go so far to say that in the 1800's that some version of the plurality of worlds in the universe was very common. 1
Mike Reed Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Swedenborg has always been, and still remains, a relatively unknown figureOne does not have to be known to be influential.Emerson's thoughts don't fall into the same category of either Joseph Smith or SwedenborgEmerson was heavily influenced by Swedenborg, so I think the matter is far more complex than you realize.
altersteve Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I agree with what others have said here. I don't consider this a bullseye.
ERMD Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Neither Swedenborg nor Emerson desired to form a religious institution. They were interested in sharing ideas and enlightening minds. Would you say that Joseph Smith's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson’s? I sure wouldn'tI would hazard to guess that far more people are at least familiar with the name of Joseph Smith than Swedenborg, and that far more people have changed their lives due to the teachings of Joseph Smith than of Emerson. More people may have heard of Emerson, but as far as truly studying his works and the degree to which he influenced their lives, he would not hold a candle to the Prophet. 1
cinepro Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) As a city dweller who only occasionally gets away from city lights at night, I can only imagine what the night sky must have looked like in Joseph Smith's time. Edited December 20, 2011 by cinepro 1
Duncan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 As a city dweller who only occasionally gets away from city lights at night, I can only imagine what the night sky must have looked like in Joseph Smith's time. Why would Joseph Smith have waited to put this in the Book of Moses or the D&C rather then in the Book of Mormon?
cinepro Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Why would Joseph Smith have waited to put this in the Book of Moses or the D&C rather then in the Book of Mormon?Why would God have?
Recommended Posts