Aliwe Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 So, are you saying that Christ created The Father (and himself)? Or should we not take the phrase "all things" quit so literally?Well, as a non-Mormon, I believe that divine "things" like God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, were never made. Nor are they things (except that Christ has a body and that's a thing). God is, in fact, love in action.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Nor are they things (except that Christ has a body and that's a thing).I don't even need to comment on that one.
altersteve Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Is it possible that Jesus Christ is simply the creator of our world with others creating other worlds?Not according to what God told Moses.
Spammer Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Not according to what God told Moses.The better question is when did Jesus create the white-hot singularity that exploded in the Big Bang over 14 billion years ago? Our earth and all worlds in our universe emerged spontaneously out of the matter and energy of that explosion..
Doug the Hutt Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 The better question is when did Jesus create the white-hot singularity that exploded in the Big Bang over 14 billion years ago? Our earth and all worlds in our universe emerged spontaneously out of the matter and energy of that explosion..That's where normal thinking breaks down. There was no "when" before the Big Bang. Time did not exist, so using words like "when" are meaningless. It's like trying to describe going south of the south pole.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Relative to this universe that is true. But who knows about other universes in a multiverse, as some theories have it.
Spammer Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 That's where normal thinking breaks down. There was no "when" before the Big Bang. Time did not exist, so using words like "when" are meaningless. It's like trying to describe going south of the south pole.Indeed. Can there be a "where" if there's no "when"? Time and space go together. Do HF and Jesus have spatial coordinates?
Aliwe Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 The better question is when did Jesus create the white-hot singularity that exploded in the Big Bang over 14 billion years ago? Our earth and all worlds in our universe emerged spontaneously out of the matter and energy of that explosion..Here's some food for thought. There was no "explosion", if you think of an explosion as a dense hot point that expands into a pre-existing empty space. New space is continuously inserted, dynamically (and yes, ex nihilo) into the interstices of existing space, forever reducing the density of the universe. That means the big bang is still banging. But it's not so hot anymore.
SamIam Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) name='Doug the Hutt' timestamp='1340638343' post='1209136960']That's where normal thinking breaks down. There was no "when" before the Big Bang. Time did not exist, so using words like "when" are meaningless. It's like trying to describe going south of the south pole.Big bang as a concept is slowly fading away under a new theory that big bangs simply spawn other big bangs and that their is a successive chain of bigs bangs before the one that created our place in space and there will be many more indefinately. http://www.wired.com...currentPage=allThis is certainly closer to truth than previous as it better aligns with LDS doctrines on creation of millions of worlds as recorded in the P of G. Ex nihilo is clearly not correct and has no scriptural support and that also is in keeping with LDS doctrine of the eternal nature of matter and infinite availability of matter. This thought is now also being expanded on in science as postulates and theories are coming forth which describe the growth of Galaxies and black holes by a process analogous to any living organism - galaxies and Black holes consume materials beneficial to their increasing in size.http://news.softpedi...ow-258790.shtmlThis also is more compatible with LDS theology of the earth as a living creation of God. If the earth then why not the solar system from which it originated?Still the scriptures are a superior source of what we should expect from science. As more and more things are better understood we only seem to be moving towards better explanations that do not exclude the scriptural record but instead plead all the more for an acceptance of divine processes in the creation of all things. However, that only works if you first believe in God and let his word be the guide. If you have convinced yourself first that there is no God then there is no amount of scientific evidence that will make him real to you. And that is how it should be.I also think it worthy of mention that in addition to Joseph Smith's knowledge of the eternal nature of matter and other, for his day, scientific unknowns, up until the recent decade or so the potential of expectation of millions of habitable worlds was denied by science. Now, again , as science expands it's understandings we find that science is finally only moving in the directions that Joseph taught 150 years + before science would even have a clue. Joseph Smith - the gift that keeps on giving. Edited June 26, 2012 by SamIam 1
William Schryver Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 God is, in fact, love in action.I imagine he is so large that he fills the universe, and yet so small that he can dwell in your heart. Is that about right?
mfbukowski Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I imagine he is so large that he fills the universe, and yet so small that he can dwell in your heart. Is that about right?Wow. That is really a profound insight. I must compliment you on that.
Carton Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Wow. That is really a profound insight. I must compliment you on that.Are you serious? Srsly serious?
Weston Krogstadt Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think it was around 1830Rude and uncalled for!
Weston Krogstadt Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think it was around 1830Rude and uncalled for!
thesometimesaint Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) samlam:"http://www.wired.com...currentPage=all"Maybe. His theory is dependent upon if there is enough matter in the universe to produce "The Big Crunch". The consensus of the scientists right now is that there isn't. IOW The universe will continue all the gas is used up in all the suns till no more can be made. Followed by the slow dissolving of even the protons that make up atoms. No need to loose any sleep over that. Its just going to take about another 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Edited June 28, 2012 by thesometimesaint
William Schryver Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 No he's not. Are you sure? I think he was serious.
Deborah Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Are you sure? I think he was serious.Only as serious as you are.
Spammer Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 It seems Mormon cosmology requires there to be multiple universes. If God resides within our universe living on a planet near Kolob, has been around since the beginning, and he's the cause of the Big Bang, then he's from some other universe and moved to the Kolob system after the first planets in our universe emerged out of the gas and dust. This must be true, unless there are no other universes. What then? If there are no other universes and God did not come from outside and has always been here, where was he 14.7 billion years ago when all of the matter/energy of our universe was compressed into a white-hot, dense point? Was God inside, microscopic in size? Did he ride the blast wave on a hydrogen atom, growing in size over the eons until he attained 'normal' size for a human, perhaps at the point that the first habitable planets emerged from the chaos? If God has a dad, was God's dad inside the dense, pre-Big Bang point? What about God's dad's dad? If there is only our universe and the correct cosmological model is the Big Bang-Big Crunch cosmos, does that mean that gods' physical mass and size increase and decrease in proportion with the density of matter? Could it be that future exalted beings from our planet who will inherit the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will one day be microscopic in size? 1
Spammer Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Maybe. Just trying to use my puny mind to think though ways that both the Big Bang and the idea that God is a man with a dad (or not - it seems church members are now in disagreement on this point) can be reconciled.For instance, if there is only one universe and it follows the Big Bang-Big Crunch model, what happens to a deified human standing on his celestialized, material earth in the distant future when all of the matter and energy in the universe surrounding that earth contracts back into the dense, white-hot point? Does the deified human and his world contract with it? Edited June 29, 2012 by Spammer
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Spammer:I think your mind is just fine. But the LDS have no theology on the subject of if it's a universe or a multiverse. I tend towards a multiverse also, but have absolutely no way to prove it 1
Nofear Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 For my own part I do no like any multiverse model*. In particular I find them troublesome for most interpretations of our theology. But I won't go into that here. Instead I subscribe to the following:Genesis accounts are exclusively a reference to our solar system's organization - no more, no less.God being God of the "universe" can be and should be interpreted in the same way as Noah's flood covering the "whole earth", both for ancient and contemporary references.If Heavenly Father has peers (as I believe he does) there is plenty of space in our single universe to accommodate distinct domains.Observational evidence is consistent with our universe organizing at a finite time in the past (some 13.7 billion years ago) but does not require a singularity. I suspect that the universe has always existed into the infinite past but asymptotically diverged from a singularity like state until it cooled off enough to start organizing to our current state (still have to explore if this is a feasible model, but I've been more concerned with the plausibility of faster-than-light (FTL) actions for now).Any cosmological model will be necessarily incomplete until and when we can incorporate spirit matter into it. But for that to happen we have to have a model of spirit matter. There is no functional model of spirit matter yet (they are all still metaphysical models).* Most references seem to infer Tegmark's Level II multiverse. I can see Level I multiverses but if we include FTL travel then that is a modified scenario. 1
DarkScythe Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 i do believe that we are stuck on our planet for our protection not for the other races. And yes I do believe in galatic space travel. then again, i do have a lot of weird beliefs
mfbukowski Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Are you sure? I think he was serious.Ah yes, 1990 was a wonderful year.
Recommended Posts