Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[The Nehor]

I can see this, but I don't know how you could prove it true for all cases.

I agree but scrupture has some tantalizing hints that suggest that this is so.

[shalamabobbi]

I don't agree. I don't see why that should be.

Let me post some quotes from EVC that may help explain why.

Space/time is neither matter nor energy... ...I have always considered space to be a sort of ‘not a thing’.

Yes, very much the view outside of the physics/mathematics of Relativity: space(-time) is simply the arena in which "things" are located.

This would be a reasonable view if it wasn't for one feature of space-time: distance. Imagine a simple 2d rectangular grid of points as our simplified "space", say 100 by 100 points. If I have a particle at coordinate (7,14) and another at (10, 18), you would conclude that the distance between the two is 5 units (by Pythagoras.) However, reality is much more complex. Distance is not related to the coordinates. The distance between neighbouring points is actually variable...

Imagine that at each point we have a set of four numbers describing the distance to the four neighbouring points: (2,3,1,0) could mean that the point above is 2 units away, the point to the right is 3 units away, the point below is 1 unit away, and the point to the left is actually zero distance away, making it and our point coincident! So our two points mentioned before could be 5 units apart, but they could be zero distance apart, or they could even be an infinite distance apart! It all depends on the individual distance values. You can hopefully see how our boring flat rectangular grid could in fact have some very interesting geometry when we consider these distances - our grid is becoming curved or warped.

I went a bit far in my previous reply trying to answer a much larger question than you were asking. The brief version is this: the distances I was describing, these sets of numbers defined at each point in space-time, make up what we call a field.

You are more used to the fields that give rise to the particles: the electrons, photons, quarks, etc. Just about all of physics comes down to interactions between the fields - an electron and an anti-electron annihliating to give two photons is just the eletron field and photon fields exchanging excitations - conservation of "energy" is simply the accounting of the excitations being exchanged.

But those distances form a field which interacts with the particle fields in exactly the same way - we call this the graviton field - and the interactions change the value of the distances, which gives rise to curavture and geometry of space-time. At the fundemental level, fields are just swapping their excitations. At our level, we interpret the particle fields and the graviton field very differently.

So yes, space-time is very much a real "thing", there is a fabric, and it is as fundemental as the particles that make up our everyday experience.

Think of space as an ocean (the fields), and "things" as waves (field excitations). Everything is ocean, both the things, and the space between the things.

Inverse square law is talking about mutual relation between two masses as a function of distance between them.

Yes, if we are talking about Newtonian gravity and mechanics.

yet as you must know gravity is a relation of at least two bodies.

I certainly must not know, as it is blatently untrue. Depending on context, gravity is the reaction of the metric to itself and the stress-enegy distribution (essentially the mathematics of General Relativity); or it is the reaction of a test body to the metric (essentially the physics of General Relativity.)

So again if God created GR He had to do it from a frame of reference where it did not exist. But since GR is the discription of the universe within which we find ourselves He must have acted from without that Universe. If He is already subject to this universe then He is also already subject to GR and didn't create it.

[shalamabobbi]

The problem is that you cannot even talk about it "accounting for the constructing we do" because that is a contradiction in constructivism.

The quote you gave agrees as I read it with the intent of my comments.

The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.

That world that is out there apart from any descriptions is what I am refering to as exterior reality.

The world that is out there, apart from any descriptions, is why we are able to make constructions in the first place. If there was no regularity to the world out there we would not be able to construct anything. Not vision, speech, hand eye coordination, etc, etc, etc.

That we have the ability to use science to discover laws that have predictive value illustrates that we can learn something about that reality.

I mean you might talk poetically about things you cannot see- just know that you are now in the realm of faith and religion.

That works for me. Faith is belief in things that are true. (Or in this case real)

Edited September 23, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

Cuz it's fun!

Yes it is! And so is sex

[mfbukowski]

That world that is out there apart from any descriptions is what I am refering to as exterior reality.

Nope. It isn't. You just described it while saying you were not going to. The description above is self-contradictory.

There is no such thing

[mfbukowski]

That works for me. Faith is belief in things that are true. AND UNSEEN

There.

I fixed it for you.

They are "real" in the sense that their effects in your life are real. If your life changes because of your beliefs, they most certainly ARE "real".

If you love your neighbor, your beliefs are real. If now you have meaning in your life where before you had none, your beliefs are real.

If you put on a suicide vest and blow up people, or if you become St. Francis of Assisi and preach peace to the world, your beliefs have changed lives.

Edit- oops made a mistake

Edited September 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

Nope. It isn't. You just described it while saying you were not going to. The description above is self-contradictory.

There is no such thing

Well then it's Rorty's self-contradiction, not mine.

[thesometimesaint]

I am willing to let the sciences do what they do and to enjoy the fruits of their labors. To give credit where due and respect their work. What I am not able to do is to accept all pronouncements as irrevocable facts, especially in the areas of creation. Theories are guesses. Informed guesses but guesses all the same. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted but I do not believe it is universally accepted. I don't know enough physics to argue the science but I have a few personal philosophical issues that keep me from becoming a blind follower of the concept. I don't look at it as an issue that affects my eternal salvation at this time so I am content to be a big bang agnostic.

I like science too. It does deserve a lot of credit. Science deals in evidences, theories and facts otherwise it is just guesses. Theories aren't guesses, no matter how well educated. Any theory must account for all the known evidences and laws that pertain to the subject in question. Even one exception must either modify the theory or the theory must be rejected. IE We know know there is gravity that is a fact. The theory of gravity is just how we explain what gravity does. So in reality the theory is more useful than the mere fact. With the Big Bang we have the fact that the universe is expanding at an increasingly incredible rate. That at some time in the past the universe was much smaller than it is today. There is no known force that can stop gravity. Through a series of very complex mathematics that I wouldn't bore you with here. At a point some 13.7 billion years ago the universe was infinitely hot and infinity dense. What caused the rapid expansion isn't known, but it did. Now some 13.7 billion years later we can look back a ponder the origins of creation.

[shalamabobbi]

Before everyone decides to forget about the big bang and go back to eating husks, a couple of further clarifications:

misconception #1

The Big Bang equals creation ex nihilo

I have often repeated that there is no good definition of energy in General Relativity. It is a concept that works well on the small-scale (so just about everything within our experience) but as you start to deal with large volumes of curved space-time, you realise that all the hard "facts" regarding conservation seem to soften, and sometimes vanish completely. When you then jump to talking of the energy of the whole Universe, you are then very close to making the classic category error, confusing the contents of the Universe with the Universe itself.

There are some ways of making semi-rigorous definitions of the total energy, and this is what we see discussed in the literature and made reference to in the colloquial presentations by Hawking, Krauss, etc.

The fact is, if we are being very colloquial, that General Relativity is almost the statement that the gravitational energy is always equivalent to the mass-energy. That is the very constraint that dictates what is and what is not allowed in space-time physics. So there is nothing surprising in any of this. Adding in dark energy, dark matter, etc makes absolutely no difference to this - GR is essentially balancing the gravitational energy against all the other inputs.

Why then all the fuss?

It simply comes down to being able to answer the moronic question of "so how do we get something from nothing?" If we can reply that the Universe is essentially nothing, then we can probably get the questioner to shut-up, as we know that there is no way in hell we're going to be able to explain the truth behind the nature of energy in space-time physics in a matter of minutes, hours, or even days.

The Universe as a quantum fluctuation is a great idea, but it is certainly not an answer to "something from nothing" - there is an arena in which this quantum fluctuation took place, whether that is pre-existing space or something more abstract. So it is inescapably something from something.

misconception #2

A universe with no beginning eliminates the idea of creation ex nihilo

So who cares whether the total energy of the Universe is zero? And in other cosmogenetic ideas, such as colliding branes, there is simply no requirement for the total energy to be zero.

The only alternative is what I've just decided to call "something not from anything" (which is actually what every possible answer will revert to once you look at it from the right scale. A Universe with infinite past is of this nature)

[Flyonthewall]

Well the scriptures do! Don't you believe the scriptures I have quoted? It is not as though they are ambiguous. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you could tell us what problem you have with the verses I have quoted.

I don't have a problem with any verses you have quoted. I believe your interpretation to be the problem. You are forcing an interpretation that is not required, and, is in direct contradiction to a statement by the first presidency. So, if I have to choose between an interpretation by you, or a statement by the first presidency, well, it's not even a choice. I'll go with those that are called by God specifically to interpret scripture.

How so? How did He create our bodies, but not our spirits?

Simple. Our spirits were already in existence, and when the world was created, our bodies were created out of the elements of this earth.

Let's look at Ether 3:15 for example:

"And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image."

Nothing here that demands a reading of Jesus being the father of our spirits.

How did Jesus create our bodies "in the beginning" in His own image? Which "beginning" was that? Or look at D&C 93:10:

"The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him."

It is all in the past tense. So how did Jesus create all our bodies in the past tense? The same is true of Mosiah 26:23.

When you have given an explanation for the above, I will believe you!

Nay, the First Presidency is contradicting scripture!

There is nothing in the scriptures you have cited that reflects Jesus being the father of Spirits. It has always been taught that God the Father is the Father of our spiritis. For some reason, you have decided to go against the teaching of the church and come up with your own interpretation.

Adam was the first man - see Moses 3:7. The first man was Adam and was the first flesh on this earth. When the scriptures speak about Jesus creating man, it is simply referring to Adam and his posterity...or the physical bodies the spirits are housed in, not the spirits themselves.

When talking about an event that happened in the past, of course one will use past tense. If man was created in the beginning, and the scripture was given centuries or even millenia later, its going to be referred to as being done in the past.

I beleive you to be looking beyond the mark...trying to find hidden meaning in verses that have already been explained.

I am surprised that you are proclaiming the First Presidency to be wrong and contradicting the scriptures.

[zerinus]

I don't have a problem with any verses you have quoted. I believe your interpretation to be the problem. You are forcing an interpretation that is not required, . . .

If so it should be easily demonstrable.

. . . and, is in direct contradiction to a statement by the first presidency. So, if I have to choose between an interpretation by you, or a statement by the first presidency, well, it's not even a choice. I'll go with those that are called by God specifically to interpret scripture.

I would recommend you to do that too! But that doesn't alter my reading of the scriptures though.

Simple. Our spirits were already in existence, and when the world was created, our bodies were created out of the elements of this earth.

But that is not what the scriptures say. You would have to distort the verses quite a lot to read that into them.

Nothing here that demands a reading of Jesus being the father of our spirits.

It demands the reading that He is the creator of our spirits. It is up to you what else you want to read into that.

There is nothing in the scriptures you have cited that reflects Jesus being the father of Spirits.

It says He created our spirits---whatever else you want to read into that, is up to you.

It has always been taught that God the Father is the Father of our spiritis. For some reason, you have decided to go against the teaching of the church and come up with your own interpretation.

All I am doing is to read the plain meaning of what the scriptures have said; and not an isolated, misunderstood verse either.

Adam was the first man - see Moses 3:7. The first man was Adam and was the first flesh on this earth. When the scriptures speak about Jesus creating man, it is simply referring to Adam and his posterity...or the physical bodies the spirits are housed in, not the spirits themselves.

But it doesn't. It says that all men were created in the beginning in His image. There is no way of reading anything else into that. He is the creator of all men in the beginning. That means what, in your estimation?

When talking about an event that happened in the past, of course one will use past tense. If man was created in the beginning, and the scripture was given centuries or even millenia later, its going to be referred to as being done in the past.

So did Jesus create the bodies of all men in the beginning? Which beginning? How did He create all the future bodies of future men "in the beginning"?

I beleive you to be looking beyond the mark...trying to find hidden meaning in verses that have already been explained.

Not at all. I am making a common sense reading of the verses in question; and you are doing a circle to circumvent that obvious reading.

I am surprised that you are proclaiming the First Presidency to be wrong and contradicting the scriptures.

If I hadn't given a reasonable explanation, you might have been. But since I have (which neither you or anybody else has refuted), I am surprised that you should think that way.

[zerinus]

P.S. Here is another scripture for you to look at:

D&C 29

:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;

2 Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer.

8 Wherefore the decree hath gone forth from the Father that they shall be gathered in unto one place upon the face of this land, to prepare their hearts and be prepared in all things against the day when tribulation and desolation are sent forth upon the wicked.

11 For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

17 And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I

have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit

.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea,

all things

both

spiritual

and temporal

—

32

First spiritual,

secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work

—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal;

neither any man,

nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created

.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

Verses 8, 11, 12, 17 are introductory to demonstrate that It is Jesus Himself that is speaking. The remaining verses make clear that Jesus is the creator of all things, both temporal and spiritual, including mankind. He is the creator of our spirits as well as our bodies. I don't know how you are going to get away from that.

[Flyonthewall]

If so it should be easily demonstrable.

I would recommend you to do that too! But that doesn't alter my reading of the scriptures though.

But that is not what the scriptures say. You would have to distort the verses quite a lot to read that into them.

It demands the reading that He is the creator of our spirits. It is up to you what else you want to read into that.

It says He created our spirits---whatever else you want to read into that, is up to you.

All I am doing is to read the plain meaning of what the scriptures have said; and not an isolated, misunderstood verse either.

But it doesn't. It says that all men were created in the beginning in His image. There is no way of reading anything else into that. He is the creator of all men in the beginning. That means what, in your estimation?

So did Jesus create the bodies of all men in the beginning? Which beginning? How did He create all the future bodies of future men "in the beginning"?

Same way He created all things in the beginning...each creation was to have seed within themselves to bring forth their own kind. That is how apple trees sprout from apple seeds. Wheat sprouts from wheat seeds. Cattle give birth to cattle and man gives birth to man.

Jesus creates Adam and Eve with the power to bring forth children...He designed our bodies to create more bodies. Our bodies are His design, His creation...from the beginning, even until the end.

Not at all. I am making a common sense reading of the verses in question; and you are doing a circle to circumvent that obvious reading.

If I hadn't given a reasonable explanation, you might have been. But since I have (which neither you or anybody else has refuted), I am surprised that you should think that way.

My reading is backed by the Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your is in direct contradiction to them. If you are happy with that then I will leave you to your personal interpretation(the First Presidency has refuted your interpretation). I just hope you will present it as such.

[zerinus]

Same way He created all things in the beginning...each creation was to have seed within themselves to bring forth their own kind. That is how apple trees sprout from apple seeds. Wheat sprouts from wheat seeds. Cattle give birth to cattle and man gives birth to man.

Jesus creates Adam and Eve with the power to bring forth children...He designed our bodies to create more bodies. Our bodies are His design, His creation...from the beginning, even until the end.

Except that that is not what those verses are saying.

I just added a Post Script to my previous post, by the way, which you might like to look at and amend your reply if you wish to.

My reading is backed by the Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your is in direct contradiction to them. If you are happy with that then I will leave you to your personal interpretation (the First Presidency has refuted your interpretation). I just hope you will present it as such.

I have never misrepresented what the First Presidency have said; I am just explaining why I think they may have got it wrong!

[Flyonthewall]

P.S. Here is another scripture for you to look at:

D&C 29

:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;

2 Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer.

8 Wherefore the decree hath gone forth from the Father that they shall be gathered in unto one place upon the face of this land, to prepare their hearts and be prepared in all things against the day when tribulation and desolation are sent forth upon the wicked.

11 For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

17 And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I

have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit

.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea,

all things

both

spiritual

and temporal

—

32

First spiritual,

secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work

—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal;

neither any man,

nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created

.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

Verses 8, 11, 12, 17 are introductory to demonstrate that It is Jesus Himself that is speaking. The remaining verses make clear that Jesus is the creator of all things, both temporal and spiritual, including mankind. He is the creator of our spirits as well as our bodies. I don't know how you are going to get away from that.

I invite you to contact the First Presidency and correct them of the false doctrine they have been teaching.

[zerinus]

I invite you to contact the First Presidency and correct them of the false doctrine they have been teaching.

LOL! I don't feel the need to do that; but there is nothing to stop you from doing that if you want to. You can write and tell them that there is a Mormon dude on the Internet who is saying all of these crazy things, and I don't know what to make of it. Some clarification would be appreciated. See what they will say. I fear that you might get some boring answer like, "go and talk to your bishop" or something like that. And you know what the bishop will say, don't you!

[Flyonthewall]

LOL! I don't feel the need to do that; but there is nothing to stop you from doing that if you want to. You can write and tell them that there is a Mormon dude on the Internet who is saying all of these crazy things, and I don't know what to make of it. Some clarification would be appreciated. See what they will say. I fear that you might get some boring answer like, "go and talk to your bishop" or something like that. And you know what the bishop will say, don't you!

I believe the First Presidency. They state that God the Father is the father of our spirits. You say He is not, Jesus Christ is. Which should be contacted?

[zerinus]

I believe the First Presidency. They state that God the Father is the father of our spirits. You say He is not, Jesus Christ is. Which should be contacted?

You are distorting what I said. I am not saying anything about anybody being the father of anybody. All I am saying is that according to the scriptures Jesus is the creator is all things, including the spirits and bodies of men. What conclusion you intend to draw from that is up to you.

Edited September 24, 2012 by zerinus

[urroner]

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea,

all things

both

spiritual

and temporal

—

32

First spiritual,

secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work

—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal;

neither any man,

nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created

.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

Verses 8, 11, 12, 17 are introductory to demonstrate that It is Jesus Himself that is speaking. The remaining verses make clear that Jesus is the creator of all things, both temporal and spiritual, including mankind. He is the creator of our spirits as well as our bodies. I don't know how you are going to get away from that.

Does "all" always mean the complete totality? Is God the Father a spiritual and/or temporal being? If so, did Jesus create God the Father? How about himself? Sometimes, "all" doesn't mean "the complete set of something."

For instance, 4 Nephi 3, it says "And they had all things common among them," does that mean they had everything in common? Same ailments, same number of children, and did they all live in the same house?

Matt 3:5 "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan," Did all of Judea and all the region around Jordan come out to John the Baptist?

[mfbukowski]

Before everyone decides to forget about the big bang and go back to eating husks, a couple of further clarifications:

misconception #1

The Big Bang equals creation ex nihilo

misconception #2

A universe with no beginning eliminates the idea of creation ex nihilo

Bravo!

[mfbukowski]

Well then it's Rorty's self-contradiction, not mine.

Write it up and publish it in a philosophical journal and you might revolutionize epistemology.

[zerinus]

Does "all" always mean the complete totality? Is God the Father a spiritual and/or temporal being? If so, did Jesus create God the Father? How about himself? Sometimes, "all" doesn't mean "the complete set of something."

For instance, 4 Nephi 3, it says "And they had all things common among them," does that mean they had everything in common? Same ailments, same number of children, and did they all live in the same house?

Matt 3:5 "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan," Did all of Judea and all the region around Jordan come out to John the Baptist?

It is not just about "all". It is about "men," and about "beginning," and about "spiritual," and about a whole bunch of other stuff combined.

[urroner]

It is not just about "all". It is about "men," and about "beginning," and about "spiritual," and about a whole bunch of other stuff combined.

Well, when you say "spiritual," "men," and "beginning," what do you mean?

[zerinus]

Well, when you say "spiritual," "men," and "beginning," what do you mean?

You tell me! Go back and read all of my previous posts relating to this topic, and come up with an answer which more comprehensive than that. The question you are asking has been answered in my previous posts.

[shalamabobbi]

Write it up and publish it in a philosophical journal and you might revolutionize epistemology.

you jest..