This Is Why We Need Science Folks

[Cobalt-70]

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:

So you are saying the planets are the sun's "wives"? And the sun keeps them in line and revolving around their proper orbit? I'm not a big fan of this analogy.

[SamIam]

There are images at the bottom of this post that are referrenced in the post. It will help if one opens each image at the appropriate time and examines it against the quotes and observations that are made.

So you are saying the planets are the sun's "wives"? And the sun keeps them in line and revolving around their proper orbit? I'm not a big fan of this analogy.

Wives works if that is the way you have to see it. The way the heavens are organized is in the least a pattern of organization that duplicates not only the core organization in the priesthood – the family, but also the other organizations in the priesthood as in a first presidency. If you don’t just shut down because this is an entirely different paradigm, at the very least you will be able to see the analogies. That may be enough. I will take you through a few of the statements by prophets and science and illustrate only the one principle you have pointed to – the roles of planets and suns.

The first place is to set the stage with this thought by Joseph Smith:

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.)

Keep in mind here that Joseph, not me, has introduced the idea of gender assignment to heavenly bodies. The sun fills a masculine role and the moon feminine. The sun governs certain planets.

To make the comparison complete the concept as contained in Doctrine and Covenants 88:45 must be added:

D & C 88:45

45 The earth rolls upon

her

wings, and the sun giveth

his

light by day, and the moon giveth

her

light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

The essence is that Joseph considers the moon a feminine orb and indicates that this gender of orb borrows its light from the masculine orb which is the sun. D & C 88:45 classes the earth and the moon as feminine orbs and thus both must borrow their light from the sun. It is possible that we can see the suns role as that of a mortal father. He provides the means for protection and sustainment of those that depend upon his sustaining and this is the presiding duty of man.

Is it a far leap to see that the sun provides for the earth?

Perhaps an analogy can be found by the observations of science in the following posit of the energy source which powers the Van Allen Belts:

It is believed that the protons of

the inner belt

originate from the decay of neutrons produced when high-energy cosmic rays from outside the solar system collide with atoms and molecules of the Earth’s atmosphere. Some of the neutrons are ejected back from the atmosphere; as they travel through the region of the belt, a small percentage of them decay into protons and electrons. These particles move in spiral paths along the lines of force of the Earth’s magnetic field. As the particles approach either of the magnetic poles, the increase in the strength of the field causes them to be reflected. Because of this so-called magnetic mirror effect, the particles bounce back and forth between the magnetic poles. Over time, they collide with atoms in the thin atmosphere, resulting in their removal from the belt.

The outer Van Allen belt contains charged particles of both atmospheric and solar origin

, the latter consisting largely of helium ions from the solar wind (

steady stream of particles emanating from the Sun

). The protons of the outer belt have much lower energies than those of the inner belt, and their fluxes are much higher. The most energetic particles of the outer belt are electrons, whose energies reach up to several hundred million electron volts. (

http://www.britannic...-radiation-belt

)

SEE FIGURE ONE BELOW

The essence of this as an example of providing is that the sun provides the energy that the earth then utilizes to provide for a layer of protection. This is in addition to the common, but valid analogies of providing heat warmth and light for the health of the planet as a whole.

However, while this might be analogous to providing the income that mom uses to by the groceries to feed the offspring, there is a additional example that is actually more directly related to protecting the earth same as the role of a father who protects the welfare of his family:

The sun is constantly sending out charged particles in all directions, forming a cocoon around the solar system called the heliosphere. (http://news.national...-space-science/)

This NASA-provided graphic shows the heliosphere around the sun. The region is dominated by the sun and is inflated, like a bubble, in local interstellar material by the million mile-per-hour solar wind. This bubble keeps out the ionized or charged particles and magnetic fields from the galaxy and so protects us from dangerous galactic cosmic rays.

SEE FIGURE 2

So, perhaps you might be willing to see the analogy that as the sun travels through space it forges the wondrous barrier that shields and protects not only the earth but indeed each of the planets that follow in its orbital path. This is an act of protecting, a priesthood role of a father.

However, Joseph says that the sun presides. Does science recognize any conditions which we might characterize as an act of presidence? Yes it certainly does:

The next larger entity in the universe for us is the solar system, with all its various, associated heavenly bodies. These are the 8 large planets or "moving" stars, one of which is our Earth and numerous other celestial bodies of considerably smaller masses: planetoids, periodic comets, meteor showers, etc. Of the planets, Mercury is closest to the sun, followed by Venus, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, the most distant. Together with the Moon, Venus and Mars are the planets nearest to the Earth.

All of these celestial bodies are continuously held captive to the sun by the effect of gravity

; the bodies are continually forced to orbit the sun as the central body in elliptical orbits.

The planets together with the sun form the "sun's empire of fixed stars," so to speak.

They form an island in the emptiness and darkness of infinite space, illuminated and heated by the sun's brilliance and

controlled at the same time by the unshakable power of the sun's gravitational force,

and are thus linked in an eternal community. That island is our "extended homeland" within the universe. A realm of truly enormous size: even light needs more than 8 hours to traverse it and it is racing through space at a velocity of 300,000 km per second!

http://www.hq.nasa.g...26/noord55.html

Of course, I’m held a bit bound by the scientific explanations I find that seem to me to speak to these patterns I am defending, because if they were perfectly correct in their scientific assessments the terms captive and controlled are not exactly suitable but for my purposes here will suffice.

This next quote illustrates the principle of the paradigm shift that is required to see what I am positing here against long held sacred cows of preconceived notions of how things work. It discusses the limitations one paradigm can have over comprehending the truth of a matter and since it is precisely in line with this conversation, it seems apropos:

In spite of these remarkable insights (astronomical observations) , Copernicus was less emancipated from the medieval universe than most people imagine. His planetary orbits were still circles and so they remained until the time of Kepler. But most important of all, Copernicus retained the outer sphere of fixed stars and simply rearranged the order of the planets and the sun inside this great sphere.

Copernicus retained the closed system -- the bandbox universe of his predecessors

-- and

as a result his sun-centered or heliocentric system has little more in common with the universe

of the twentieth century astronomer than the geocentric structure of Ptolemy. It was not Copernicus or Galileo but Giordano Bruno who grasped the great truth that the so-called fixed stars were actually huge suns like our own.

Bruno conceived of a universe extending outward infinitely, containing suns without end, each, perhaps, racing through space with its own family of planets;

Bruno's cosmos was a bold concept indeed, when compared with the stiffing, enclosed systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus. (

http://www.theosophy...ur/ph-holli.htm

)

It’s nice to be a Copernicus when the time is right to be a Copernicus. He still represents one giant step in the right direction of better understanding. However, based on the scriptures and prophetic statements we are in a better position to be Giordano Bruno and gently let our horizons broaden to embrace the union of spiritual concepts clearly spoken and keenly rendered with our own simple efforts of just believing. Believing that while the scriptures and prophets may use a different language than scientists, it does not mean that we can’t help the scientists understand how the small truths they are discovering fit into the eternal worlds of God and his servants.

Now we have covered the foundational priesthood unit of a family. I will leave you though with the next logical step to move outward from here in this Brigham Young quote:

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. .( Journal of Discourses, “Self-Government—Mysteries—Recreation and Amusements, Not in Themselves Sinful—Tithing—Adam, Our Father and Our God”, A Sermon by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852.)

If you explore this profound statement, with a believing heart you will find this pattern all the way down the kingdom line in the three quarks that form a proton or a neuron,

SEE FIGURE 3

up to the three elements that comprise a atom – proton, neutron, electron,

SEE FIGURE 4

To the three components of a family – a father a mother and children

To the three components that preside over a Ward and then a Stake and then a church, and then as we have discussed a family in the solar system, to the presiding components that govern the solar system itself….and so on and so on and so on until you end up right where Brigham started, with a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost that presides over all.

Now just a teaser, which if you have found something here will react favorably , but if this has stretched beyond self – imposed Copernicun limits you will only discount the possibility.

Once again look at an image of the Van Allen belts that form the magnetic field that surrounds the earth:

SEE FIGURE 5

Theology:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:45

45 The earth rolls upon her

wings

, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light,

as they roll upon their wings

in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Science:

Within this magnetic field are bands that comprise invisible boundaries. These are called Van Allen belts

[1]

named after their discoverer James Van Allen.

Van Allen went on to win the equivalent of the “Nobel space physics prize” for this

fundamental

space discovery --

which was eventually found to be a basic feature of ALL planets in (and outside) the solar system exhibiting similar magnetic fields.

(

http://www.enterpris...m/Von_Braun.htm

)

So according to the imagery supplied by science we can now view the sun, earth, moon, and stars, as rolling upon their wings as this field is a basic feature of ALL planets in and outside the solar system. I didn't provide the images for the concerns of space but the sun also and all stars, have these same magnetic "wings" that are characterisitic of all "living" orbs.

These magnetic belts are very much involved in the processes that propel planets through space. Is the imagery of wings a proper scriptural imagery? Absolutely! Will everyone see it? No they won’t but it’s fun when you get it.

I have hundreds of pages of material making these types of comparison. Many are very compelling to those who wish to see. However, I am convinced that we very much limit our horizons by our tendency to not be believing. We’ll see…

Earlier Kerry lamented that there was no semblance between the scriptural expectations and the scientific discoveries that define the cosmos. I politely disagree and hope to have illustrated in one very small example of hundreds, of such analogies, that there is indeed some very precise comparisons. However, they are never to be found in researching the science alone - they are only found by searching the scriptures as the standard and then letting the light illuminate where the truths of science are found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets.

After all.............This is why we need the SCRIPTURES and the PROPHETS - folks.

[1] The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. It is thought that most of the particles that form the belts come from solar wind, and other particles by cosmic rays.( http://science.howst...-belts-info.htm)

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I think all this silly speculation is utter pap, no offense. Like I said, no evidence and certainly NOTHING like our real cosmos...... this appears to smack of pure desperation to make some sort of semblance out to have links. It is just silly man. Give this to a real astronomer (even a Mormon one) and let him tell you, don't take my word for it.

For instance, why stop at the proton, neutron and electron? Because that fits the analogy? But those aren't final particles nor nearly the end of the story. This all is just truly what we DON'T need in Mormonism, speculating like this will get us laughed out of the universe by the astronomers, philosophers, physicists, and geologists, let alone the evolutionists, cosmologist, and chemists. I say you need to give this kind of stuff up enturely. The ONLY folk it will impress go to Priesthood Meeting, and they are the wrong folk to get it right.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[SamIam]

I think all this silly speculation is utter pap, no offense. Like I said, no evidence and certainly NOTHING like our real cosmos...... this appears to smack of pure desperation to make some sort of semblance out to have links. It is just silly man. Give this to a real astronomer (even a Mormon one) and let him tell you, don't take my word for it.

For instance, why stop at the proton, neutron and electron? Because that fits the analogy? But those aren't final particles nor nearly the end of the story. This all is just truly what we DON'T need in Mormonism, speculating like this will get us laughed out of the universe by the astronomers, philosophers, physicists, and geologists, let alone the evolutionists, cosmologist, and chemists. I say you need to give this kind of stuff up enturely. The ONLY folk it will impress go to Priesthood Meeting, and they are the wrong folk to get it right.

Kerry,

I figured this would be your response. It goes with the territory you tread. You have forgotten that the foundation of theology and science are entirely different. Theology builds faith and that is its foundation. Science pretends to build from evidence and you find it satisfying and preferred. You want evidence and in the plea you are really saying, I have no faith, I need proof. Read your post it is the demanding of a petulant child yelling at his father - "You want me to take your faith and I don't want it. Give me answers or I'm out the door." You have basically said that in several of your posts. You state, "why stop at the proton, neutron and electron?" Because my point was to illustrate the role of a quorum presidency which is precisely what Brigham pointed you to in the quote I provided but you choose to ignore it.

Read it again and you tell me what he is saying. My guess is you will not be able to - you need proof and proof is the death of faith.

This was what was so troubling when you first started posting that disturbed me so. I'm past it now and just accept it for what it is but I was surprised to find from your very first post that you are on the edge, your are losing your testimony and that was shocking to me. I'm hoping you will slow down a bit and think more clearly.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry,

I figured this would be your response. It goes with the territory you tread. You have forgotten that the foundation of theology and science are entirely different. Theology builds faith and that is its foundation. Science pretends to build from evidence and you find it satisfying and preferred. You want evidence and in the plea you are really saying, I have no faith, I need proof. Read your post it is the demanding of a petulant child yelling at his father - "You want me to take your faith and I don't want it. Give me answers or I'm out the door." You have basically said that in several of your posts. You state, "why stop at the proton, neutron and electron?" Because my point was to illustrate the role of a quorum presidency which is precisely what Brigham pointed you to in the quote I provided but you choose to ignore it.

Read it again and you tell me what he is saying. My guess is you will not be able to - you need proof and proof is the death of faith.

This was what was so troubling when you first started posting that disturbed me so. I'm past it now and just accept it for what it is but I was surprised to find from your very first post that you are on the edge, your are losing your testimony and that was shocking to me. I'm hoping you will slow down a bit and think more clearly.

I forgot nothing. What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence. Proof is the death of faith, the birth of intelligence. Actually, now that I am using my brain to think logically, with reason, and critical thinking, my thinking has never been so clear. Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry. Science sorts out the muddle puddle with solid intelligence. I understand ENTIRELY *WHY* you stopped at the proton, electron, and neutron, simply following Brigham's incomplete and hence totally inaccurate analogy. THAT was my point. It doesn't work. Stuff like that isn't faith promoting, it isn't accurate, it certainly isn't scientific, but........the real nice thing is......it certainly is religion. And I promise, I see the difference. Religion always wants to fob off science in order to legitimate itself. It's happened since before Newton. But it does not work. Science never cribs from faith, but faith always needs some support since by itself it is virtually powerless. Science which has proven it has the goods, the evidence, is always invoked by religion. The reason is obvious, even if contrived.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

Proof is the death of faith, the birth of intelligence.

Come on, really?

Edited July 14, 2012 by volgadon

[SamIam]

I forgot nothing. What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence. Proof is the death of faith, the birth of intelligence. Actually, now that I am using my brain to think logically, with reason, and critical thinking, my thinking has never been so clear. Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry. Science sorts out the muddle puddle with solid intelligence. I understand ENTIRELY *WHY* you stopped at the proton, electron, and neutron, simply following Brigham's incomplete and hence totally inaccurate analogy. THAT was my point. It doesn't work. Stuff like that isn't faith promoting, it isn't accurate, it certainly isn't scientific, but........the real nice thing is......it certainly is religion. And I promise, I see the difference. Religion always wants to fob off science in order to legitimate itself. It's happened since before Newton. But it does not work. Science never cribs from faith, but faith always needs some support since by itself it is virtually powerless. Science which has proven it has the goods, the evidence, is always invoked by religion. The reason is obvious, even if contrived.

If you will stand so strongly on points that deny the scriptural precedence of faith, I can only again lament that you have reversed the standards by which to measure life's meanings.

Kerry, I ask this question quite frequently on this board, but if the very elect were going to be deceived what would it look like? What clothing would it wear, what shoes would it tread in, what language would it speak? What arguments would it sustain? Perhaps, I need not ask so many questions ...perhaps I only need discern what Shirts it would wear.

[Libs]

What about us poor "unscientific" beings, who not only must take religion on faith, but science, as well? I am amazed and in awe of what some people know, about science, but I sometimes wonder how much, even the most knowledgeable human being really knows? Where are we in the evolution of cosmic beings? Are we, metaphorically speaking, in primitive times, still? Or are we some of the smarter beings in the cosmos?

The scriptures say, "the glory of God is intelligence", so I would assume, by that, that Kerry is onto something, in regards to gaining knowledge. Isn't that one of the reasons we were sent here..to gain knowledge and wisdom?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Come on, really?

Fundamentally so. The glory of God is faith........... just doesn't quite have the same ring to it as The Glory of God is Intelligence, does it...... lets try another one, You have got to have faith yourselves in order to become gods....... Joseph Smith said you have got to LEARN how to become gods ourselves. A man is saved no faster than he gains faith.......nope, the real statement was a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. How about another one? God has all faith. Doesn't jive does it......... the truth is God has all knowledge. In other words, intelligence. LEARNING using the brain and mind is what gives us INTELLIGENCE, the POWER to discern and discriminate between truth and falsehood. Faith cops out admitting well, we don't know, but HAVE FAITH! It's giving up on the quest for FINDING OUT even when we don't know. It is continually improving our minds. Was it faith that are eternal beings? No, we are eternal INTELLIGENCES according to that rascal Joseph Smith........

Edited July 14, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If you will stand so strongly on points that deny the scriptural precedence of faith, I can only again lament that you have reversed the standards by which to measure life's meanings.

Kerry, I ask this question quite frequently on this board, but if the very elect were going to be deceived what would it look like? What clothing would it wear, what shoes would it tread in, what language would it speak? What arguments would it sustain? Perhaps, I need not ask so many questions ...perhaps I only need discern what Shirts it would wear.

LOL! They would be deceived without even knowing it, because they believe they already have the truth and true doctrine and stop thinking things through and simply follow what they are told. THAT is being deceived. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had it exactly right. We are to KNOW the TRUTH for OURSELVES, not merely accept on faith what is taught to us by others, no matter their station or spirituality in ANY church. Stand on YOUR OWN, or fall. The deceived, what would they look like? Why, those who deny knowledge and learning for themselves, but merely follow. The scriptures and prophets are full of that. None better than Joseph and Brigham to show that.

[SamIam]

I forgot nothing. What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence. Proof is the death of faith, the birth of intelligence. Actually, now that I am using my brain to think logically, with reason, and critical thinking, my thinking has never been so clear. Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry. Science sorts out the muddle puddle with solid intelligence. I understand ENTIRELY *WHY* you stopped at the proton, electron, and neutron, simply following Brigham's incomplete and hence totally inaccurate analogy. THAT was my point. It doesn't work. Stuff like that isn't faith promoting, it isn't accurate, it certainly isn't scientific, but........the real nice thing is......it certainly is religion. And I promise, I see the difference. Religion always wants to fob off science in order to legitimate itself. It's happened since before Newton. But it does not work. Science never cribs from faith, but faith always needs some support since by itself it is virtually powerless. Science which has proven it has the goods, the evidence, is always invoked by religion. The reason is obvious, even if contrived.

As I have pondered this further I thought to make one more point that should hone this right in. I suspect it will not but it is irrefutable to me:

Moses 6:63

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

Many years ago I accepted this scripture as a foundation of my testimony. I have accepted and tested it and it is true. Over the years I have developed my understandings of all things temporal and spiritual in accordance with this principle. Following the insight of scriptures and counsel of prophets , I seek to find the likeness of my God and my Savior in all things both in heaven and Earth. If the scriptures are true to you then it should remind you of how it is that one can see God and his creations as I have done.

It is not wrong, except upon the principles that you outlined. If I was one inclined to “aspire to the ^dhonors of men,” and worry that my findings might fall short of the honors of the institutions that you have come to revere then perhaps it might seem a miserable effort. However, I have persuaded many believers and assuaged their flailing testimonies with this type of comparisons that provide some hope that illustrates the church and science are not enemies and carefully wrought one can see possibilities that calm them until they can get back to the real business of building the kingdom. It is very difficult to build something you are having trouble believing in.

This verse is so powerfully illustrated in this exchange:

2 Nephi 9:28

28 O that cunning ^aplan of the evil one! O the ^bvainness, and the frailties, and the ^cfoolishness of men! When they are ^dlearned they think they are ^ewise, and they ^fhearken not unto the ^gcounsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their ^hwisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be ^alearned is good if they ^bhearken unto the ^ccounsels of God.

Kerry, you don’t have to try real hard to see that all of your comments and observations are at odds with gospel principles. Why is that the case? and how can you not want to change it?

If knowledge you seek then the knowledge of worth is found by seeing the “things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath:” and to realize that they bear record of Jesus Christ.

[volgadon]

Fundamentally so. The glory of God is faith........... just doesn't quite have the same ring to it as The Glory of God is Intelligence, does it...... lets try another one, You have got to have faith yourselves in order to become gods....... Joseph Smith said you have got to LEARN how to become gods ourselves. A man is saved no faster than he gains faith.......nope, the real statement was a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. How about another one? God has all faith. Doesn't jive does it......... the truth is God has all knowledge. In other words, intelligence. LEARNING using the brain and mind is what gives us INTELLIGENCE, the POWER to discern and discriminate between truth and falsehood. Faith cops out admitting well, we don't know, but HAVE FAITH! It's giving up on the quest for FINDING OUT even when we don't know. It is continually improving our minds. Was it faith that are eternal beings? No, we are eternal INTELLIGENCES according to that rascal Joseph Smith........

I'd be more than happy for you to show me where in those verses it points to the destruction of faith as prerequisite for intelligence, that the two are incompatible. Of course in LDS teachings faith is temporary, but here is the catch. Faith isn't abolished in favour of something completely diferent, faith grows into knowledge, a perfect comprehension of the truth. We ascend nowhere by taking an axe to rungs we've yet to climb. Faith, as a certain rascal lectured, was to be exercised unto "life and salvation." Faith allows one to "lay hold upon eternal life."

As a different rascal, from Breslav, said, "the whole world is a very narrow bridge, the main thing is not to fear at all."

[sunstoned]

I forgot nothing. What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence. Proof is the death of faith, the birth of intelligence. Actually, now that I am using my brain to think logically, with reason, and critical thinking, my thinking has never been so clear. Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry. Science sorts out the muddle puddle with solid intelligence. I understand ENTIRELY *WHY* you stopped at the proton, electron, and neutron, simply following Brigham's incomplete and hence totally inaccurate analogy. THAT was my point. It doesn't work. Stuff like that isn't faith promoting, it isn't accurate, it certainly isn't scientific, but........the real nice thing is......it certainly is religion. And I promise, I see the difference. Religion always wants to fob off science in order to legitimate itself. It's happened since before Newton. But it does not work. Science never cribs from faith, but faith always needs some support since by itself it is virtually powerless. Science which has proven it has the goods, the evidence, is always invoked by religion. The reason is obvious, even if contrived.

100+

[Cobalt-70]

Keep in mind here that Joseph, not me, has introduced the idea of gender assignment to heavenly bodies. The sun fills a masculine role and the moon feminine. The sun governs certain planets.

To make the comparison complete the concept as contained in Doctrine and Covenants 88:45 must be added:

...

The essence is that Joseph considers the moon a feminine orb and indicates that this gender of orb borrows its light from the masculine orb which is the sun. D & C 88:45 classes the earth and the moon as feminine orbs and thus both must borrow their light from the sun. It is possible that we can see the suns role as that of a mortal father. He provides the means for protection and sustainment of those that depend upon his sustaining and this is the presiding duty of man.

My issue is not with the fact that Joseph Smith assigned masculine roles to the sun and feminine roles to the moon. My issue is the use of this analogy to limit the "proper role" or real live women on this planet. It would be just as easy, in a more extreme but equally valid analogy, to assign the role of master to the sun, and the role of slave to the moon. Does that mean that the sun-master and moon-slave are to be held up as models for human interaction?

[SamIam]

Fundamentally so. The glory of God is faith........... just doesn't quite have the same ring to it as The Glory of God is Intelligence, does it...... lets try another one, You have got to have faith yourselves in order to become gods....... Joseph Smith said you have got to LEARN how to become gods ourselves. A man is saved no faster than he gains faith.......nope, the real statement was a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. How about another one? God has all faith. Doesn't jive does it......... the truth is God has all knowledge. In other words, intelligence. LEARNING using the brain and mind is what gives us INTELLIGENCE, the POWER to discern and discriminate between truth and falsehood. Faith cops out admitting well, we don't know, but HAVE FAITH! It's giving up on the quest for FINDING OUT even when we don't know. It is continually improving our minds. Was it faith that are eternal beings? No, we are eternal INTELLIGENCES according to that rascal Joseph Smith........

If we were going to play more of my scripture versus your scripture we could probably go on all night. However, you are clearly taking too narrow of a scope and you are forcing your point with much contrivance. At the same time you are burying yourself in partial truths that cannot stand against the intent of scripture, especially in your understandings of faith. But alas, I'm not here to one up you again and again. If you can't be objective with yourself what chance have any of us of convincing you otherwise. Perhaps one of the greatest burdens I suffer with is to watch good people get tricked and deceived until they minimize the church right out of their lives.

In this response you try to marshal the prophets to your cause and in your first to my initial post you dispense them as possessing ideas that are "incomplete and hence totally inaccurate" in their analogies. You can't have it both ways. It simply validates the observation that it appears you may not always be on the prophets side unless you can contrive them to agree with your side. What is clear is that without question you are always on Kerry's side as the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge. That is exceedingly evident indeed.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

Very frustrating around here.

I really wish some of you would read about even athiests who believe in the future of religion. There is no comprehension on either side of what the real issues here are. All this stuff about "proof" and "rationality" is, well, just naive and uninformed.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134940

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

These guys may be atheists but at least they understand where religion stands in relation to science.

Do I agree? Certainly not with what they believe about God, but I certainly DO agree in the logic of their stance. The bottom line is that religion has nothing to do with "objective reality".

What they don't believe about God is that he is the transcendent God of the Greeks. Guess what? We don't either!

Go ahead, shell out 10 bucks and download a Kindle version, download a free Kindle reader and get some education. PLEASE

These atheists are among the best friends Mormons have out there in the land of philosophy, but we Mormons just don't get it.

[mfbukowski]

I'd be more than happy for you to show me where in those verses it points to the destruction of faith as prerequisite for intelligence, that the two are incompatible. Of course in LDS teachings faith is temporary, but here is the catch. Faith isn't abolished in favour of something completely diferent, faith grows into knowledge, a perfect comprehension of the truth. We ascend nowhere by taking an axe to rungs we've yet to climb. Faith, as a certain rascal lectured, was to be exercised unto "life and salvation." Faith allows one to "lay hold upon eternal life."

As a different rascal, from Breslav, said, "the whole world is a very narrow bridge, the main thing is not to fear at all."

[SamIam]

My issue is not with the fact that Joseph Smith assigned masculine roles to the sun and feminine roles to the moon. My issue is the use of this analogy to limit the "proper role" or real live women on this planet. It would be just as easy, in a more extreme but equally valid analogy, to assign the role of master to the sun, and the role of slave to the moon. Does that mean that the sun-master and moon-slave are to be held up as models for human interaction?

In my response I put in one very brief caveat just for this observation that you made here. I knew I would have to reference it to illustrate my point. I stated, "Of course, I’m held a bit bound by the scientific explanations I find that seem to me to speak to these patterns I am defending, because if they were perfectly correct in their scientific assessments the terms captive and controlled are not exactly suitable but for my purposes here will suffice."

It is indeed difficult to grow up in the times we have grown up and not have tainted perspectives on the roles of men and women. Even when there is no denigration intended we just hear it anyway - we make it up if we have to just because of how ingrained it has become. What I mean above by pointing out that captive and controlled were not exactly suitable for my examples was predicated upon one very fine point made in Doctrine and Covenants 121:

...and thy ^cdominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

I realize that most see this as applying to humankind only and in a sense it might. However, whether it is God as the creator that all of his creations willingly follow without compulsory means or whether we want to posit that it is a principle that exceeds our typical application and applies to all of Gods creations within the boundaries of their capacity it is the same. Moses 7 for many is a figurative conversation with God and Enoch and his creations. However, I believe it to be more. At one level or another each of Gods creations will choose to fill the role they fill. And in no sense should anyone ever suppose that a man is superior to a women whether in people or planets or in any form, each is a perfect compliment to the other and of perfect necessity.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Very frustrating around here.

I really wish some of you would read about even athiests who believe in the future of religion. There is no comprehension on either side of what the real issues here are. All this stuff about "proof" and "rationality" is, well, just naive and uninformed.

http://www.amazon.co...o/dp/0231134940

These guys may be atheists but at least they understand where religion stands in relation to science.

Do I agree? Certainly not with what they believe about God, but I certainly DO agree in the logic of their stance. The bottom line is that religion has nothing to do with "objective reality".

What they don't believe about God is that he is the transcendent God of the Greeks. Guess what? We don't either!

Go ahead, shell out 10 bucks and download a Kindle version, download a free Kindle reader and get some education. PLEASE

These atheists are among the best friends Mormons have out there in the land of philosophy, but we Mormons just don't get it.

I do not believe I am clear on your point - if I have to buy the book - I guess I will never be clear. However, I have mentioned before that I have a clear understanding that God has never ordained atheists to speak in his behalf. Perhaps you might elaborate and I could understand your point more clearly.

[mfbukowski]

I do not believe I am clear on your point - if I have to buy the book - I guess I will never be clear. However, I have mentioned before that I have a clear understanding that God has never ordained atheists to speak in his behalf. Perhaps you might elaborate and I could understand your point more clearly.

Tomorrow - it's too late tonight but I will.

[SamIam]

...Of course in LDS teachings faith is temporary, but here is the catch. Faith isn't abolished in favor of something completely different, faith grows into knowledge, a perfect comprehension of the truth.

While I am not going to posit that I understand these principles in their entirety, I would just like to expand that there is more to faith than it's transition into knowledge. I also realize that you are probably very aware of these concepts but I thought to add them as they are actually the most undermining to concepts of knowledge as the sole state of superior attainment.

“When a man works by faith he works by mental exertion instead of physical force. It is by words, instead of exerting his physical powers, with which every being works when he works by faith. God said, ‘Let there be light: and there was light.’ . . . And the Saviour says: ‘If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, say to this mountain, “Remove,” and it will remove; or say to that sycamine tree, “Be ye plucked up, and planted in the midst of the sea,” and it shall obey you.’ Faith, then, works by words; and with these its mightiest works have been, and will be, performed. . .Joseph Smith

“. . . The whole visible creation, as it now exists, is the effect of faith. It was faith by which it was framed, and it is by the power of faith that it continues in its organized form, and by which the planets move round their orbits and sparkle forth their glory” (

Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith,

72–73;)

If Joseph posits the very acts of creation that we discuss as founded upon the principles of language as we have discussed before in other threads and that that act of speaking and waiting until you are obeyed is the supreme example of the exercise of faith even for God's creative efforts, one wonders if there are not at least two aspects of faith that are distinct and each meritorious for their intent. It seems to me that faith is an eternal principle which if absent in one possessed of all knowledge would leave him grasping in vain for a single creative act.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam

[Calm]

faith grows into knowledge, a perfect comprehension of the truth. We ascend nowhere by taking an axe to rungs we've yet to climb.

There is a reason why faith is compared to a seed first and then a growing plant. It must be living, growing to be truly faith. It is active, dynamic, responsive. It is not something that can be locked into a rigid or determined form, to do so is to alter it into something else, something that is dead, infertile, nonproductive. True faith does not shut down thought, but opens it up. Within the branches of faith all life can flourish as well. Knowledge is its fruit. Edited July 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

While I am not going to posit that I understand these principles in their entirety, I would just like to expand that there is more to faith than it's transition into knowledge. I also realize that you are probably very aware of these concepts but I thought to add them as they are actually the most undermining to concepts of knowledge as the sole state of superior attainment.

Almost anything I could say on the topic would be incomplete. Don't think I could ever do it justice. You are right, faith is an eternal principle, the lectures on faith make that clear.

[volgadon]

I hate obscurantism. It is a blight. I've defended the importance of using one's brains many times on this board, but the whole science good, religion bad thing is silly.

[SamIam]

What about us poor "unscientific" beings, who not only must take religion on faith, but science, as well? I am amazed and in awe of what some people know, about science, but I sometimes wonder how much, even the most knowledgeable human being really knows? Where are we in the evolution of cosmic beings? Are we, metaphorically speaking, in primitive times, still? Or are we some of the smarter beings in the cosmos?

The scriptures say, "the glory of God is intelligence", so I would assume, by that, that Kerry is onto something, in regards to gaining knowledge. Isn't that one of the reasons we were sent here..to gain knowledge and wisdom?

Knowledge is absolutely one of the things we are here to gain. However the question is seldom understood as to knowledge of what? So we run off picking our pet interests and follow our natural tendencies to just be ourselves and we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are fulfilling the edict of growing in knowledge simply because we can illustrate a sense of knowing about something.

The real question is what knowledge is it that we should seek. The basic foundational theological principles are centered on some very intriguing, quite against the natural tendencies of most and decidedly lacking in intellectually stimulating capacity. Many intellectuals often fail to grasp their superior requirement over the "knowing" of things more tangible. They are overlooked as the goals of simpletons, the naive and childish. The most important knowledge is first knowledge of Christ. That is why I posted this reminder from Moses 6.

Moses 6:63

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

The more venues you can find that reflect aspects of Christ and who he is and how he thinks, what he values, what pleases him, what causes him pain; these things should be the foundation of all searching for knowledge. Since if you do not understand things from his perspective then you are missing the knowledge that saves.

Moses 7:39

39And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

The verses preceding this one in Moses are about the earth suffering and Enoch’s expanding comprehension of love for all of God’s creations. Not just man, but the earth that weeps over her children and all of the heavens that languish in pure sorrow and genuine suffering for both the events that lead to the flood and the subsequent event that redeems all of God’s creation in the Atonement. However, this verse above caused me to wonder what about man, and about all of creation is so important, so valuable that Christ would plead, would beg, would be willing to suffer the horrible pain that, according to the requirements of heaven, was necessary to redeem all of it. The planets, the suns, mankind, all of God’s creation required him to take on this role. Why?

So, this is the only knowledge that gives any efficacy to science, to religion, to philosophy, to why you get up in the morning. The only knowledge that matters is to possess the knowledge of why Christ would choose to die for you and me and suns and moons and stars and in fact all creation. Then we look at what the emphasis of what other knowledge it is that we should actually be seeking, once we know of Christ, according to the scriptures – the basic foundational theological principles I mentioned earlier - the knowledge I mentioned before that is undermined and under appreciated by those who miscomprehend what it is about creation that makes knowing important. The knowledge we should be seeking to acquire is love of all creation - the pure love of Christ – this is what drove him to plead in all creations behalf. The knowledge of justice – this is what drives decisions of judgment that Christ will render. The knowledge of mercy, which is your and I’s greatest hope and which Christ overwhelmingly wants to offer to all if they will simply obey. The knowledge of appropriate anger, for which cause he must chastise some who seek to destroy the greater good. The knowledge of patience, longsuffering, meekness, boldness, and all other traits as they apply to Jesus Christ is the knowledge we seek. So any wholesome venue in which we seek to explore and increase our understanding and knowledge can be beneficial but really it is only of worth when Christ is the center of our search.

Now the point is I began to study the cosmos from this perspective. I wanted to feel of the unity of creation that would cause the heavens to sorrow and Christ to be willing to give up his mortal life to redeem that about which Enoch originally ignorantly asked, “How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? I wanted to feel internally the answer to that question and the question of why it mattered to Christ to do this thing.

You ask, “Isn't that one of the reasons we were sent here..to gain knowledge and wisdom?” Yes, absolutely correct. But not just any knowledge will do and surely incomplete sterile knowledge that is not brought to life by infusing it with its meaning to the Savior is more vacuous and empty and of less worth in the eternal scheme of things than the dust of which worlds are made. To seek knowledge without Christ is not to be "onto something" as you put it in your question. It is to be missing it entirely.

I study planets and stars, and black holes in space only for this brief time in my life, about four months now, as I have sought this particular aspect of knowledge. Why does it matter to Christ? I can tell you that it has not been a fruitless endeavor. I have grasped more of the unity of God’s creations, the majesty of the Father and the Son than I could ever have imagined. I have felt this event as felt by Enoch,

…wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.

Because of the hours and hours of effort in research, prayer and pondering, I have felt my heart swell, genuinely swell, as I have tried to grasp even the tiny bits I have been gifted and I now own. That was the knowledge I sought and while not in a fullness, it is the knowledge I am finding. I have grown to love all of creation in ways I never realized were possible. It is the most pure and beneficial reason to spend much time seeking knowledge about planets and stars and such. If Christ loves these acts of creations and the fruits thereof so much that he would die to preserve them – the knowledge I seek is to understand mans role according to his wishes and to embrace it and make it mine and then understand why the gratitude swells ever more in my heart for the knowledge of the sun and the moon and the stars and that Christ would save them all.

Yes, indeed, my friend...knowledge is what we are here to acquire.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SamIam