This Is Why We Need Science Folks

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Orbit Smith

A rather appropriate-for-this-thread mistype!

(Also, my middle name is José -- Spanish for 'Joseph' -- so not only do I have a form of "Joseph Smith" within my name, when I trace back the etymology and take it all together as Yarimyah Yoseph Orbem-Smei, we get Jehovah Exalts, Jehovah Increases, the Earth-Maker-Carver, which is just about the Mormoniest name I ever saw, especially for a convert. *laugh*)

Edited July 11, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[wenglund]

A rather appropriate-for-this-thread mistype!

(Also, my middle name is José -- Spanish for 'Joseph' -- so not only do I have a form of "Joseph Smith" within my name, when I trace back the etymology and take it all together as Yarimyah Yoseph Orbem-Smei, we get Jehovah Exalts, Jehovah Increases, the Earth-Maker-Carver, which is just about the Mormoniest name I ever saw, especially for a convert. *laugh*)

This is great. I love it!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Joseph Antley]

High-fives for annoying people.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[media=]

(As an Annoying Person who has made Annoying Arguments many a time, most likely even in this thread, I feel the need to clarify that my annoyance was, in fact, solely with some arguments and not the person -- so no hard feelings, I hope, Mr. Antley. *five*)

Edited July 11, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[volgadon]

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the lesson wasn't also symbolic; I definitely agree with you about that -- I'm actually working on a paper myself about the Hosts of Heaven/the Stars.

Sounds interesting.

(And I apologize if that post came off as attacking you personally, volgadon -- upon rereading, it sounds rather more, um, pointed than I should have let myself get. I tried to edit out some of the excess.)

It didn't read as a personal attack, and I am fond of spirited discussion.

I'm just annoyed at the argument Antley (and so many others I've read recently) make that imply that because cosmology isn't "essential to our salvation" that it's somehow less important than our symbolic understanding. I'm an amateur surrealist painter; I love symbolism. But I love astronomy and science, too! And I don't even know what it means when we shut down speculation just because it's "not essential to our salvation."

Whatever principle of intelligence we gain will rise with us; if our religion is natural philosophy, as Brigham Young said, it seems to me that we should be at the forefront of all fields of science, trying to learn how to be like our Heavenly Parents who told us that the last enemy to be destroyed is death (see Corinthians). How? Joseph said it'll be a long time after this life before we understand salvation, but we should be trying to understand right now, and that's not going to happen unless we start using our brains to figure out the real world, rather than being as salt that has lost its savor because we're not smart enough to be the saviors of humanity yet.

All too often, it seems, discussions of the astronomical portions of the BoA become arguments over the merits of various astrophysical theories. Not only is this presentism, it misses the point of the revelation. Abraham already knew astrology/nomy. What I don't think has been discussed much in LDS circles is that Abraham's early interest in astronomy/logy wasn't considered particularly positive. I think that when in the BoA, God restructures Abraham's understanding of the meaning of the cosmos, it is a more moderate example of that line of thought. One of the reasons I love the Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham book is how it collects a huge amount of Abrahamic resource material in one volume. Makes it easier to study both similarities and differences among the traditions. OK, I lied. I like the pictures.

While I agree that the hard sciences are important, the scripture you quoted about intelligence, at least as I consider it, has more to do with a "gnosis" than academic accomplishments. Don't get me wrong, I am a research geek, I feel that education is very important to our progression, but we can't learn even the half of what we'd like to before we lay mouldering in the grave. Using myself as an example, I have dyscalculia, so even pre-algebra is immensley difficult for me. The hard sciences usually bore me. If there is no post-mortal training in the scientific principles of the universe, then I'm screwed. There are people brilliant at math, who suck in reading ancient Jewish texts, can't quote Coleridge to save their lives, and haven't a shred of Russian. We all have different talents, interests and capabilities. What is important is to become used to incorporating continuous revelation in our lives. One could even argue that the idea of being brainy = salvation, is very Neo-Platonist, and thus part of the Great Apostasy.

That being said, down with the evil of obscurantism!

And I think the first step is to quit adopting the post-apostasy arguments I see being appropriated all over the place in the LDS sphere that take it as a given that the "spaceman" God traditional christians mock is supposed to be more embarrassing than the idealized outside-of-space-and-time abstractions (see the 'Did God Ever Sin' thread, where the inevitable First Cause God is trotted out as being so much more philosophically respectable than the Real Person God of Mormonism).

My Unmoved Mover and Cause of Causes can beat up your Spaceman God!

[Calm]

I like the pictures.

Oh, me too!

[mfbukowski]

When you understand that every statement in language is metaphor, it doesn't much matter if we call it "science" or "religion", it is still all myths of one type or another.

Language is not real- it is not even a good "picture" of reality. After all, pictures may be worth a thousand words but being there is worth a million.

After all, why do people want to see the Eiffel Tower or Disneyland if they could just read about it all in a book and have it be the same?

Even scientific descriptions are just descriptions, and poorly written at that because they don't even TRY to capture the entire experience.

As William James would say, there is quite a difference between reading a menu and eating a steak.

Edited July 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ANACO]

I don't find it embarrasing to consider Kolob a real planet, I consider it immaterial to the scripture, if you'll pardon the pun. The lesson being taught involved governing entities, represented by the stars/planets, and their role in the hierarchy and government of God. I've got quite a few references for a project of mine. The whole concept was far from anemic, as least from what I've found. I'm not even sure it would have made much sense for Abraham to look at it any other way.

What I do find embarrasing is stuff like Hilton's Kolob Theorem.

Kolob is a star. Not a planet.

And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me:

Kokaubeam

, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.

...therefore

b

Kolob

is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

The lesson also taught is that the seed of Abraham would be as great as the stars in heaven: Abr 3:14

And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words unto me: I will ^amultiply thee, and thy ^bseed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the ^cnumber of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds.

The Lord also compared the number of stars to the number of sands. That's not immaterial, unless you don't believe sand exists and that symbolism is unimportant to Abraham. It also teaches that this creation upon which we are standing is similar to that from which we came, if you listened in the Temple. You know, a planet circling a star. It's also reflected in Matt 25:21 - faithful over few (small) things, ruler over many (large) things.

See also the importance of Kolob in 5:13

But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

And how long did Adam live? Just short of a thousand "earth" years - in the day he ate thereof.

Scripture use on this site, is appalling, mingled with the teachings of men.

With Kind Regards.

[volgadon]

Kolob is a star. Not a planet.

In Hebrew there was no distinction between the two.

[SamIam]

Okay, granted, the "earth literally fell from Kolob orbit" is a pretty unnecessary view.

But what, may I ask, is so out-there about humans living on other worlds circling a star?

Presumably, that's what we're doing here, after all.

The earth we are all currently sitting on while we type is a physically-real planet orbiting a star. Is this crazy science fiction stuff? Is this embarrassing? Is this something to downplay into solely astral symbolism for fear of looking silly to evangelicals? And if we've granted the premise that our subatomic premortal Intelligence (or whatever) is capable of being separated from wherever the Gods are and somehow Falling into the bodies we inhabit on this planet for this life (a view that many people already find ludicrously, laughably impossible), why should we think it's impossible for the reverse to happen when we die, with our Intelligence rising to inhabit a body on a different, physically-real world?

Jeremy -this is a whole differnt side to you that I would never have figured existed. I second your observations and am impressed with your stalwartness on this particular subject. As well I agree. I would like to add that I am more and more convinced that this "pretty unnecessary view" though is perhaps maybe not necessary but it is an idicator of spiritual potential...and since I think spiritual potential is a necessary consideration I think there is great good to be had from pondering these events.

Those who receive the Second Comforter see the visions of eternity

and have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. "And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old," saith the Lord, "and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea,

even the wonders of eternity

shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great,

and their understanding reach to heaven

; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught. For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (D&C 76:7-10.) (B R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: 1982, 680.)

As you mention some of the most inspiring scripture is Joseph Smith's cosmology, Enochs vision in Moses 7, Abrahams knowledge of the heavens. It is interesting to me that those visions all seem associated with understanding priesthood and its far reaching influence and order. As well it is interesting to me that the expanded purview of heavenly things is associated with calling and election and the visions of the heavens that seem associated with the event.

Well done...

Edited July 12, 2012 by SamIam

[wenglund]

Scripture use on this site, is appalling, mingled with the teachings of men.

With Kind Regards.

There are few things quite as jarring as when a dogmatic fundamentalist follows their overly-harsh judgementalism with a "kind regards." It is like serving up a glass of hydrochloric acid with a bon bon on the side.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SamIam]

I don't find it embarrasing to consider Kolob a real planet, I consider it immaterial to the scripture, if you'll pardon the pun. The lesson being taught involved governing entities, represented by the stars/planets, and their role in the hierarchy and government of God. I've got quite a few references for a project of mine. The whole concept was far from anemic, as least from what I've found. I'm not even sure it would have made much sense for Abraham to look at it any other way.

What I do find embarrasing is stuff like Hilton's Kolob Theorem.

In Hebrew there was no distinction between the two.

I wonder Volgadon if there is not some intrinsic value in comprehending the star - planet designation for the precise purpose for which you indicate "The lesson being taught involved governing entities, represented by the stars/planets, and their role in the hierarchy and government of God." My observations have been that the role of a sun is very consistent with the presiding role of a male in the priesthood. It provides and protects and presides in the solar system. As well there is much corollary in the creative functions of the earth. While perhaps a bit speculative this verse in Moses 7 speaks to creative potential:

Moses 7:14

14 There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea.

If I was to paste the other quotes attributed to Joseph Smith concerning the city of Enoch being taken from the earth as a mass portion of matter, perhaps it might make the speculation more reasonable to consider that the people separated themselves to a land mass away from Enoch which is always the pattern when the Lord separates the wicked from the righteous prior to judgment events. Also that separating this land mass was pertinent to occur prior to being able to provide for the baptism of the earth.

It seems to me that the patterns of eternity are so tightly consistant that we will see when we leave this earth that our familial associations and observations of order of the church etc that we will actually already have the basic foundations of understanding necessary to comprehend creation on each level as they repeat the patterns over and over no matter what the object of the creative effort is.

As well I was hoping you might elaborate on the Hebrew having no distinction between the two. Are you saying the same word is used for planet as is used for star? or that a term exists that might be used as the term ADAM is sometimes used as in "called their name Adam" which though it describes both Adam and Eve can also be used to embrace the two genders as one type of creation.

Also can you help me with the idea of gender. I know that feminine gender words commonly do not equate to female but is there a brief explanation that might account for why feminine gender might be assigned to a term when it references an item of masculine qualities. For instance can it reference being in a position of authority that is subject to a higher authority etc... This question relates to reconciling this Joseph Smith quote:

General Law asked why the sun was called by a masculine name and the moon by a feminine one. I replied that the root of masculine is stronger, and of feminine weaker. The sun is a governing planet to certain planets, while the moon borrows her light from the sun, and is less or weaker. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 1932-1951], 5: 210 - 211.)

With the naming conventions of the planets in Hebrew:

If I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong

Shabbetai, Saturn - Masculine

Ẓedeḳ, Jupiter - Masculine

Maadim, Mars - Plural - gender - I'm not sure.

Ḥammah, the Sun - Feminine

Kokebet, Nogah or Kokab-Nogah, Venus -Feminine

Kokab, Mercury - Masculine

Lebanah, the Moon - Feminine

Thank you,

[SamIam]

There are few things quite as jarring as when a dogmatic fundamentalist follows their overly-harsh judgementalism with a "kind regards." It is like serving up a glass of hydrochloric acid with a bon bon on the side.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah yes, but to complete the presentation of the course being served in this bitter / sweet cuisine that is offered so kindly we should end with the appropriate pleasantry of bon appetit...

[volgadon]

With the naming conventions of the planets in Hebrew:

If I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong

Shabbetai, Saturn - Masculine

Ẓedeḳ, Jupiter - Masculine

Maadim, Mars - Plural - gender - I'm not sure.

Ḥammah, the Sun - Feminine

Kokebet, Nogah or Kokab-Nogah, Venus -Feminine

Kokab, Mercury - Masculine

Lebanah, the Moon - Feminine

Thank you,

The sun and moon also have masculine names, shemesh and yareah, respectively. Maadim is actually masculine singular, meaning "reddens." Everything else is spot on.

[SamIam]

The sun and moon also have masculine names, shemesh and yareah, respectively. Maadim is actually masculine singular, meaning "reddens." Everything else is spot on.

Since then the moon can be called Lebanah, the Moon - a feminine gender and the moon can be called yareah which is masculine (although I always thought hey patah/qamats was associated with the feminine connotation) what distinction would be required to choose either the masculine form or the feminine form when refering to the moon?

[volgadon]

Since then the moon can be called Lebanah, the Moon - a feminine gender and the moon can be called yareah which is masculine (although I always thought hey patah/qamats was associated with the feminine connotation) what distinction would be required to choose either the masculine form or the feminine form when refering to the moon?

Can't say I've noticed any consistency. A lot of it boils down to convention.

[volgadon]

As well I was hoping you might elaborate on the Hebrew having no distinction between the two. Are you saying the same word is used for planet as is used for star? or that a term exists that might be used as the term ADAM is sometimes used as in "called their name Adam" which though it describes both Adam and Eve can also be used to embrace the two genders as one type of creation.

The same word, kochab, is used for both star and planet.

[volgadon]

Kolob is a star. Not a planet.

And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me:

Kokaubeam

, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.

...therefore

b

Kolob

is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

The lesson also taught is that the seed of Abraham would be as great as the stars in heaven: Abr 3:14

And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words unto me: I will ^amultiply thee, and thy ^bseed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the ^cnumber of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds.

The Lord also compared the number of stars to the number of sands. That's not immaterial, unless you don't believe sand exists and that symbolism is unimportant to Abraham. It also teaches that this creation upon which we are standing is similar to that from which we came, if you listened in the Temple. You know, a planet circling a star. It's also reflected in Matt 25:21 - faithful over few (small) things, ruler over many (large) things.

See also the importance of Kolob in 5:13

But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

And how long did Adam live? Just short of a thousand "earth" years - in the day he ate thereof.

Scripture use on this site, is appalling, mingled with the teachings of men.

With Kind Regards.

I'll tell you what is appalling, reading comprehension skills. I never said Kolob was immaterial. If it helps, substitute irrelevant for immaterial. To understand the scripture, it is important to relaise that Kolob isa governing entity. That verse about Kolob's time fits right in with that concept, which can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They considered that their calendar lost days not because they had no leap year, but due to the governing angels neglecting their duty.

BTW, lovely little dig at my personal worthiness, but before you make remarks similar to that temple one, a visit to your ophthamologist might be in order.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Sounds interesting.

It didn't read as a personal attack, and I am fond of spirited discussion.

All too often, it seems, discussions of the astronomical portions of the BoA become arguments over the merits of various astrophysical theories. Not only is this presentism, it misses the point of the revelation. Abraham already knew astrology/nomy. What I don't think has been discussed much in LDS circles is that Abraham's early interest in astronomy/logy wasn't considered particularly positive. I think that when in the BoA, God restructures Abraham's understanding of the meaning of the cosmos, it is a more moderate example of that line of thought. One of the reasons I love the Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham book is how it collects a huge amount of Abrahamic resource material in one volume. Makes it easier to study both similarities and differences among the traditions. OK, I lied. I like the pictures.

While I agree that the hard sciences are important, the scripture you quoted about intelligence, at least as I consider it, has more to do with a "gnosis" than academic accomplishments. Don't get me wrong, I am a research geek, I feel that education is very important to our progression, but we can't learn even the half of what we'd like to before we lay mouldering in the grave. Using myself as an example, I have dyscalculia, so even pre-algebra is immensley difficult for me. The hard sciences usually bore me. If there is no post-mortal training in the scientific principles of the universe, then I'm screwed. There are people brilliant at math, who suck in reading ancient Jewish texts, can't quote Coleridge to save their lives, and haven't a shred of Russian. We all have different talents, interests and capabilities. What is important is to become used to incorporating continuous revelation in our lives. One could even argue that the idea of being brainy = salvation, is very Neo-Platonist, and thus part of the Great Apostasy.

That being said, down with the evil of obscurantism!

My Unmoved Mover and Cause of Causes can beat up your Spaceman God!

HA! Yer Unmoved Mover doesn't even exist! So I can take him on myself and win!

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Jeremy -this is a whole differnt side to you that I would never have figured existed. I second your observations and am impressed with your stalwartness on this particular subject. As well I agree. I would like to add that I am more and more convinced that this "pretty unnecessary view" though is perhaps maybe not necessary but it is an idicator of spiritual potential...and since I think spiritual potential is a necessary consideration I think there is great good to be had from pondering these events.

As you mention some of the most inspiring scripture is Joseph Smith's cosmology, Enochs vision in Moses 7, Abrahams knowledge of the heavens. It is interesting to me that those visions all seem associated with understanding priesthood and its far reaching influence and order. As well it is interesting to me that the expanded purview of heavenly things is associated with calling and election and the visions of the heavens that seem associated with the event.

Well done...

Nothing is similar to our current knowledge of cosmology however. There are no neutron stars, black holes, relativity, quantum physics.......still based on the outdated thinking of ancient folks who obviously were way off in thier knowledge. This stuff simply could not have come from an objective real God. Why wouldn't he simply disclose the truth of reality? Instead, the cosmology we read is based on the Ancient Near Eastern models. To say this is a revelation of truth is a misjustice to truth. It is nowhere near the truth of actual reality. It is precisely what we would expect though, if it is simply borrowed gleanings from others which the ancient Hebrews then claimed was a revelation to them of their God.

[volgadon]

HA! Yer Unmoved Mover doesn't even exist! So I can take him on myself and win!

I can still win because he is too unmoved to take part in a fight, it is beneath his dignity, but he'd win if he did, so there!

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I can still win because he is too unmoved to take part in a fight, it is beneath his dignity, but he'd win if he did, so there!

LOL! Nope, ain't gonna believe it just cause it's said.....gotta have the evidence. Go invite this spectator to put his godliness where your mouth is and meet me out back in the alley tonight at 7 p.m., bare knuckles, and anything goes. Lets get ready to R-U-MMMMMMMMMMMM-B-L-E!!!!!!!!!!

[SamIam]

Nothing is similar to our current knowledge of cosmology however. There are no neutron stars, black holes, relativity, quantum physics.......still based on the outdated thinking of ancient folks who obviously were way off in thier knowledge. This stuff simply could not have come from an objective real God. Why wouldn't he simply disclose the truth of reality? Instead, the cosmology we read is based on the Ancient Near Eastern models. To say this is a revelation of truth is a misjustice to truth. It is nowhere near the truth of actual reality. It is precisely what we would expect though, if it is simply borrowed gleanings from others which the ancient Hebrews then claimed was a revelation to them of their God.

I think you are mistaken but as I am not sure I am grasping your intent I better ask for further clarification. I believe you are stating that nothing in the scriptural side of things explains aspects of what we actually see in the most recent cosmological findings of our universe. I believe you are stating that "neutron stars, black holes, relativity, quantum physics" etc are principles that have no representation in the scriptural and prophetic sources that we might compare. Am I getting close to what you mean? If so please give a few more expamples of things that you feel are not adequately represented. What I find interesting is that over the years when I have researched certain things your material might be some that showed up in a Google search and I would be able to use it to further my understanding. However, I see that we have diverged in how we interpret these findings - that I think is a key distinction that I would like to explore. Let me know if I have restated above your perspective if so I may see if I can craft a response. This is my lesson week so I may not get well along until next week.

[volgadon]

LOL! Nope, ain't gonna believe it just cause it's said.....gotta have the evidence. Go invite this spectator to put his godliness where your mouth is and meet me out back in the alley tonight at 7 p.m., bare knuckles, and anything goes. Lets get ready to R-U-MMMMMMMMMMMM-B-L-E!!!!!!!!!!

Heretic.

[Avatar4321]

Is anyone arguing that we don't need science? I mean it was a gift from God.