The Kolob Theorem

[Ahab]

Your attitude toward scientists makes a rather interesting contrast with the following quote from B H Roberts:

You might want to read that again. I understand him to be talking about people doing scientific research into things as set forth by those we call prophets of God, thus combining scientific research with the guidance of God.

At any rate, I don't disdain science or scientific research. I just don't like it when people jump to false ideas or conclusions based on something they see but still fail to understand correctly.

[SamIam]

I am still not understanding I guess why you feel you need to get involved in taking sides in a scientific debate as if your faith somehow depends on it.

It just seems a much more peaceful way to live instead of worrying about whether science will or will not "prove" my religion false. It doesn't matter to me how such debates turn out. In my opinion, they have nothing to do with what I believe religiously.

Perhaps an example might explain this better than my earlier discussion.

Here is an example of truth as I view it. To me I accept it as the standard for any commentary by scientists that might relate to the ideology. I think, based on my research that I am being generous to say that as near a period of time as even 20 years ago this thought was pure poppycock.

When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, 20. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

Okay, so to be clear, this observation of Brigham’s is my standard, I neither need to prove it or accept anything that science says is contrary to it. Up until recently the incredulous stares of science could not even consider a possibility of how any person could even imagine such a cosmology. However, because I have accepted that revelation is real and Brigham possessed it as a tool for understanding that science has never had I have known and believed in a priniciple of truth far longer than science would ever have admitted a possibility.

Now let’s look at some possibilities. These may or may not be true to me. They can fit under the umbrella of the Brigham Young statement and they add a bit of tangible evidenced for something that prophets casually mentioned in front of a group of hundreds over a hundred years ago. So they stand only so long as they do not conflict with the standard.

Now, Vanderbilt astronomers report in the May issue of the Astronomical Journal that they have identified a group of more than 675 stars on the outskirts of the Milky Way that they argue are hypervelocity stars that have been ejected from the galactic core. They selected these stars based on their location in intergalactic space between the Milky Way and the nearby Andromeda galaxy and by their peculiar red coloration.

"These stars really stand out. They are red giant stars with high metallicity which gives them an unusual color," says Assistant Professor Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, who conducted the study with graduate student Lauren Palladino. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140033.htm)

Okay, so now science is willing to ponder upon something fascinating, however, would it ever be able to acknowledge any potential in the Brigham Young quote? Absolutely not. Science forbids a God based causality of revelation as a means of knowing anything and even though Brigham should be showing great potential he could not be credited with even an ounce of credibility from a scientific perspective. Nonetheless, had any LDS astronomer wanted to make a splash in say the 1930’s he could of exercised faith and predicted that a time might occur where we could validate planets and suns that move in and out of galactic systems where they did not originate. Of course it might have been the last astronomical observation he made but interesting thought nonetheless.

Let’s examine another scientific thought floating around out there.

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.

What this means is that there is much less oxygen in the interstellar medium than in our own solar system, and this is significant because oxygen and hydrogen are vital for making planets and people (and hydrogen is of course, crucial for making stars). So, where has all the oxygen gone to?

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location. (In First, NASA Probe Detects ‘Alien Matter’ Entering Our Solar System February 1, 2012 By Michael Ricciardi, http://planetsave.com/2012/02/01/in-first-nasa-probe-detects-alien-matter-from-beyond-our-solar-system/)

Is this theory correct? Only insomuch as it continues to sustain potential for upholding Brigham’s observation. Should science alter its view and change its mind, which it is ever wont to do, and deny any possibility of suns relocating into other solar systems, it will not undermine in the least Brigham’s observation for me. Brigham is right and it will only mean that once again science is behind revelation as a tool for understanding cosmology.

As this is just intended to be an example, I’ll go no further but if a person was willing to do some research and combine their research with prayer and pondering this little bit concerning planets and suns that should seem a practical example actually expands in ways that can best be conceived and ordered according to the doctrines of the priesthood. There is a ton more scientific theory being developed around what is now being observed which not only supports Brigham's theory but the thought of hypervelocity stars and planets that finally slow down and get caught in orbits around other suns has become, for some, the best solution for explaining the diversity of elements of composition of an orb that does not match the composition of neighboring orbs in the same system. Where science would have denied the possibility, now it absolutely must embrace the idea to help explain what they now observe.

However, since few can tolerate even what I have posited so far, it would probably be foolish to magnify further. My point is revelation, prophets, scripture is always the foundation and standard to which science must conform or for me it matters not. The choice is the science of proof against faith in God's prophets. It absolutely matters nothing if because we have some possible proof that we are now willing to see potential in prophetic utterance. The requirement of the proof is the condemnation of the person as faithless. I'm even willing to posit that potentially the act of suspending considering the possibility of science and religion as being compatible is equally as potentially a faithless act. So in other words, unless this little example opens even a slight door of possibility and one was willing to see the potential in other statements of prophetic utterance for which we have no proof or for which we have determined the proof invalidates, then we are still but faithless people.

There are some pretty strange statements from prophets out there,I realize that but science cannot dilute my faith in God or his prophets because I long ago determined that it is positively ridicules to attempt to confine an infinite being into the barest of finite thoughts than a man can comprehend. The very concept of God defies our efforts to bind him within our infinitesimally small abilities of comprehension. As well, from a scientific perspective, the only comprehension that man can truly have is the most extreme reach of a finite science. So it is a faithless act to insist He must conform.

[Ahab]

After the whole Olbers' Paradox thing I have learned to dismiss most of what you write ad hominem. Saves a lot of time. So, mostly for the benefit of others, try out galaxyzoo.org and see how frequently the pattern suggested by Ahab shows up.

Once would be enough to show that it's possible for our Father's kingdom to be divided into 3 main areas, generally.

What to look for: A galaxy where the center area appears to be white, the area around it appears to be red, and the area around the red area appears to be blue.

Now take a look at that site Nofear referenced. That picture is exactly what I'm talking about.

And btw, I usually dismiss a lot of what you write, too, Nofear, but I still hope you'll say something true every now and then, and who knows, maybe someday you'll realize that we agree with each other on at least something.

[shalamabobbi]

Thank you Samlam for hanging in there and continuing the discussion. I think I understand very well your viewpoint and position having gone through it myself some years back.

The general problem is that when we read something written in scripture or by a prophet we attach a meaning or interpretation to it according to our present (incomplete) world view.

Later as we learn something that conflicts with that assumed interpretation we get alarmed and close our minds to that new information because we feel it threatens us in that which we have placed our faith.

This way of proceeding keeps us stuck in a ditch and doesn't allow us to grow.

When we allow ourselves the freedom to think unhindered from such constraints (something Joseph Smith protested for) we can envision whatever our minds are capable of and remove the feeling of threat and after learning enough maybe see a better fit between our new world view and the original scriptures or words of prophets.

A very obvious example of this (at least for LDS) is the fundamentalist evangelical reaction to the very basic science that shows the stars to be much further away than a few thousand light years. I suspect you have no issue with this but you can see where someone who reads genesis literally and has the idea that a day is 24 hours long would experience the same sort of dilemma that you describe that causes you to reject aspects of science.

Yet, and I could not have said this a year ago, but I can now unequivocally state that there is not any excuse for science to deny the existence of God, nor should any purveyor of science be excused for doubting the word of God or the hand of God, throughout all of creation.

Do you not understand that by definition God has to be out of the science game? That does not mean science is against God any more than God is against science.

If accepting the existence of God is based upon faith how can a method of inquiry based upon observable facts(by any and all) allow God into its discipline?

Many in science however make these sorts of arguments which are unnecessary for the game of science and perhaps a knee jerk reaction of many is to feel threatened by science as a result.

I do not need to understand why ex-nihilo is precisely impossible from a scientific perspective.

I only need to believe in the eternity of matter but because of my faith and trust in the word of God, I know the other is wrong.

This is an interesting example as well. What do we mean by matter? Or more correctly elements as stated in the D&C? When I first read this as a youth I of course thought of the periodic chart of the elements. Obviously that interpretation had to be tossed rather quickly in my life as soon as one learns about fission or fusion of elements. I could have if I were very stubborn refused to believe in radioactive elements since "I knew" that it violated this passage from the D&C that elements are eternal.

However, my point which I hope to make is that, it doesn’t matter which is right per se, I don’t have to believe either of the possibilities is absolutely correct, but that I can guarantee that portions of theories can be found to be false without really putting a lot of effort into knowing why. As I stated in an earlier post, all aspects of Big Bang that rely on it as a single point of creation of all matter are false. Ex-nihilo is false, etc.

Again to repeat the current laws (GR) break down at T=0 and we know there must be more than our present laws represent about the discussion and many scientists believe that the BB originated from something rather than nothing, so no, it is not necessary to invoke ex nihilo to accept a BB.

However tell me if you can how a steady state universe can continue without violating ex nihilo? Where do stars get more fuel once it is all consumed?

Dated? Old? And the Big Bang theory isn't? Orrin ...You listening to this?

Yes and the theory of gravity is old as well but it gets updated according to the latest data. This is where Hoyle's ideas are old in that they are outdated by observation and current data.

But in the meantime Sunyaev and Zel'dovic, two Russian scientists, back in the 60’s or 70’s had presented another theory that predicted a different possibility that would explain and predict the bumps from a different perspective.

An observation here. You note that the very fact that they are discussing the microwave background coming through plasma in the clusters is an acknowledgement of BB?

Still, as the steady state theory has evolved, and become the static state plasma theory, aspects of it have expanded and it seems to provide means of reconsidering the burden of CBR as it relates to alternative theories and more and more are finding reason to consider plasma theory possibilities. There are several theological / scientific possibilities that make it more reasonable to me ... but that is not for now. As well, I like that plasma theory overcomes several of the other burdens of red shifting etc that are becoming more and more problematic as we expand what we can see and measure in the universe.

If you have someone other than Ari Brynjolfsson in mind here you'll need to give me a reference.

"I have a question. If Ari Brynjolfsson is correct about photons being pushed out of a gravitational well, wouldn't gravitational lensing work the opposite of what we see? That is, wouldn't light be bent away from, rather than towards a massive object? (mass would then act as a diverging lens, not a converging lens) I'm not doubting that plasma causes redshift, just that something seems amiss on this point." (source- a board post)

The problem is if you don't understand the science behind the theory you don't understand the validity of the arguments either for or against that theory so what's the point? You get tossed about by every wind of doctrine so to speak.

Still, as the steady state theory has evolved, and become the static state plasma theory

You'll have to help me here with a reference. Even google fails me with this one. It must be very fringe indeed.

Nucleosynthesis objections to non-standard cosmologies

One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory has been to provide a prediction that corresponds to the observations of the abundance of light elements in the universe. Along with the explanation provided for the Hubble's law and for the cosmic microwave background, this observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories to explain.

Theories which assert that the universe has an infinite age, including many of the theories described above, fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.

Theories which assert that the universe has a finite life, but that the Big Bang did not happen, have problems with the abundance of helium-4. The observed amount of 4He is far larger than the amount that should have been created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4He in Big Bang models is very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density, changing only a few percent as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4He is within the range calculated.

http://en.wikipedia....ndard_cosmology

This way of attacking science is very YEC in nature. Rather than account for the evidence with a sensible model just poke holes in the less understood details to create doubt.

You'll notice in any debate between Kent Hovind with scientists that this is his standard tack. One scientist switched the tables on him and took the same tack with him. He began quoting from creationist sources showing how they disagreed about which fossils were humanoid versus ape. Hovind made the comment that the thick bone where the eyebrows would be on neanderthal skulls was due to the great age lived by these old patriarchs. The scientist presented a fossil of a neanderthal child with the same feature.

[Ahab]

Currently I am working on the faster-than-light problem. Mormon cosmologies which tie into materialism (which is the way to go in my opinion) essentially necessitate the ability to travel faster-than-light.

Where did you get the idea that Mormon cosmologies or materialism essentially necessitate the ability to travel faster-than-light??? I don't see that as a necessity. It may be true, but I still don't see it as a necessity.

But our physical world models forbid it.

That makes sense. If something traveled faster than light, and it was made of some physical substance(s), what would it be? I can't imagine anything like that which would correspond to reality.

Violations of it, in almost any form, create problems for causality. I happen to be fond of causality. The question becomes what constraints need to be in place allowing for some "realms" or domains of interactions to be superluminal without violating the lorentz invariance induced causality constraints of our physical matter "realm". I may have a solution... just a few tweaks. Hoping it works out.

Here's a thought: God and his representatives can move around. They don't need to stay in one place. If God wants to do something far far away in some place he can go there to do it or send someone else to do what he wants done while staying there until the work eventually gets done. No need to imagine he needs to travel fast than light when he goes from someplace to another place.

Kinda gives another dimension to what a "coming" of our Lord means, doesn't it. Imagine how far away he will come from.

If I get that figured out, I'll revisit the issue of spirit matter, spirit bodies, and spirit worlds in a similar fashion.

Let me know when you're ready to get into it some. I may have a few moments to share my knowledge with you. Edited September 26, 2012 by Ahab

[Nofear]

Let me know when you're ready to get into it some. I may have a few moments to share my knowledge with you.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.

[media=]

[Ahab]

...

There are some pretty strange statements from prophets out there, I realize that, but science cannot dilute my faith in God or his prophets because I long ago determined that it is positively ridiculous to attempt to confine an infinite being into the barest of finite thoughts than a man can comprehend. The very concept of God defies our efforts to bind him within our infinitesimally small abilities of comprehension. As well, from a scientific perspective, the only comprehension that man can truly have is the most extreme reach of a finite science. So it is a faithless act to insist He must conform.

And you were doing so well before you made this faithless comment. Or maybe I misunderstood you?

What is it that bothers you when someone insists God must conform to true science and all that can be discovered scientifically?

I'd even say God reveals himself to us through science, or what is called the scientific method, and that without science we can know nothing about God. Here's what the scientific method means to me, just in case we're not on the same page about this:

The scientific method:

1. Choose an idea and/or problem to study and research.

2. Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.

3. Experiment to test hypotheses.

4. Examine results of the experiment(s).

5. Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.

6. Share what has been learned.

We know only what we have learned through the scientific method and God can be involved in every step of the process.

CHEERS !!!

[Ahab]

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.

Heh, okay. At least I tried.

[Ahab]

Do you not understand that by definition God has to be out of the science game?

That is a false idea We learn through science but we must also have faith that God will reveal himself to us through the scientific method.

The scientific method:

1. Choose an idea and/or problem to research.

2. Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.

3. Experiment to test hypotheses.

4. Examine results of the experiment(s).

5. Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.

6. Share what has been learned.

CHEERS !!!

That does not mean science is against God any more than God is against science.

Maybe it's your definition of God that I find confusing? What do you mean when you say by definition God is out of the science game? My definition of God is "the most supreme kind of being in all of existence", that is, when I'm not referring to a person who is God.

If accepting the existence of God is based upon faith how can a method of inquiry based upon observable facts(by any and all) allow God into its discipline?

Faith in God can be obtained through simple logic, realizing there has to be "the most supreme kind of being in all of existence" among all of the other kinds of beings in existence. From there it's just a matter of looking for scientifically based evidence that a specific king of being is the most supreme kind of being in existence, and you are to look and inquire based upon observable facts.

I'm going to stop here since your post was in response to Samlam's post and I'd like to hear what he has to say next.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Ahh, if only… if only … if only, you could Hie to Kolob.

We appear, as usual, to be talking passed each other.

I am very sorry if I offended you unintentionally- I seem to be rather good at that lately.

And I was asked to tell you that everything on Kolob is just peachy.

Edited September 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

A constructive thought, on which I hope you will tolerate my observations. Sometimes in our process of moving towards perfection, we are ahead in some ways and behind in others. Sometimes the ones that we are behind in manifest and we do not see them for the intrinsic influence they are from our mortal being. I do not typically engage you in conversation, not because I disagree with you, because I do sense the thread of unity of our intent. but because I have observed that with predictable frequency you will create false paradigms of judgment that issues from some dominating mortal tendencies.

Therefore, rather than appear to disagree and insert a sense of contention with any of your observations, because I have already observed your pattern, I choose to let you be. I see you as one on this board that has his heart overall in the right place and for our differences of thought from time to time the greater cause is not to disrupt a fragile sense of unity that I do not detect has become important to you in your dealings with others. Intent unites us and I prefer to just let that be. I know for a fact that people do not comprehend the mandate of unity for beings of godliness or those hoping to attain such for the need to establish our individual place of worth. That's why we have this silly little debates over women and priesthood, the brethren being right or wrong and such. People are so busy vaunting the sense of self they have no clue of unity that binds us together instead of separating us into gender, race or other individual based perspectives. I try to foster unity when I can detect the most significant agreement along the most important delineation - good vs. evil.

It is upon this principle that I feel people deny themselves of the spirit in understanding things like Adam -God statements made by Brigham Young. They fail to realize by the corpus of his writings that he obviously understands who Adam is. So when something he says seems to depart, we absolutely must recognize who he is and know that he is not flip flopping on his understanding. Instead he is on a few occasions expanding it. To start from a charitable place, instead of a place of judgement the spirit can then enter into the process and complete our understanding of what words alone can never convey adequately.

And you were doing so well before you made this faithless comment. Or maybe I misunderstood you?

Now, here is the example that drives this immediate response to your questions. If you reread all of my material on this thread, you will sense the overall mandate I feel for sustaining all things of God, his prophets, his words, his other servants and all that pertains to them. I can't possible say everything just perfect, and in such a way as to completely remove the weaknesses of our language and communication but you can know my spirit by a collective assessment of the unspoken flow of my comments.

What is it that bothers you when someone insists God must conform to true science and all that can be discovered scientifically?

Here is the subtle paradigm shift that is specific to you that is never embraced in the spirit of my commentary. You have slid in one word that completely qualifies your observation as correct without recognizing the nature of my intent though I agree with your observation. The word "true", puts a qualification that is outside of my commentary concerning Big Bang and evolution etc. These theories have voided the principles of true science, nevertheless most do not see them as such. So what I am saying is that we want to subject God to conform his word to this generally accepted type of science, considered by most to be such, when it espouses principles of foundational requirement that oppose God's message. Therefore it fails simply from the failure to recognize the standard to which true science must conform or at least not be in direct opposition to in order to retain even a hope of efficacy. Theory's do exist which may not be adequately developed to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the standard, but some are so clearly in opposition, these should be rejected.

Point is you needed to look beyond the weakness of our language and see the common thread of our intent and you would realize without asking the question or making the observation of "faithless" that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a need to oppose wrong, faithless thinking that would condemn a man's soul but where nuances of understanding may differ between those of similar intent I will ignore the differences that will fade over time as we each move in the same direction of unity and improved understanding.

Just a thought that I hope makes sense.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SamIam

[Ahab]

Now, here is the example that drives this immediate response to your questions. If you reread all of my material on this thread, you will sense the overall mandate I feel for sustaining all things of God, his prophets, his words, his other servants and all that pertains to them. I can't possible say everything just perfect, and in such a way as to completely remove the weaknesses of our language and communication but you can know my spirit by a collective assessment of the unspoken flow of my comments.

That's a lot of words, brother. You're very wordy when you say something, and I sometimes have a little trouble following every nuance of your thoughts and intent. A little clarification was all I wanted, and now I hear you saying you didn't say what you meant very well. I am guilty of that too, sometimes, and now I think I know what you really meant.

Here is the subtle paradigm shift that is specific to you that is never embraced in the spirit of my commentary. You have slid in one word that completely qualifies your observation as correct without recognizing the nature of my intent though I agree with your observation. The word "true", puts a qualification that is outside of my commentary concerning Big Bang and evolution etc. These theories have voided the principles of true science, nevertheless most do not see them as such. So what I am saying is that we want to subject God to conform his word to this generally accepted type of science, considered by most to be such, when it espouses principles of foundational requirement that oppose God's message. Therefore it fails simply from the failure to recognize the standard to which true science must conform or at least not be in direct opposition to in order to retain even a hope of efficacy. Theory's do exist which may not be adequately developed to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the standard, but some are so clearly in opposition, these should be rejected.

Okay, I get it now. That's why I sometimes use the term "so-called" science, instead of just saying science. Not everyone knows what science or true science really is while they talk about both as if they are interchangable terms.

Point is you needed to look beyond the weakness of our language and see the common thread of our intent and you would realize without asking the question or making the observation of "faithless" that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a need to oppose wrong, faithless thinking that would condemn a man's soul but where nuances of understanding may differ between those of similar intent I will ignore the differences that will fade over time as we each move in the same direction of unity and improved understanding.

I try to avoid making assumptions, at all costs, and instead I seek clarification. Even with God I'd rather hear him spell out something for me, until I get it, and until then I'm not sure I get it so I keep looking for the point when it's totally clear.

It does come a little at a time, precept upon precept, but slowly and gradually I get it, or at least have got it, just as I expect to keep getting it in the future.

Just a thought that I hope makes sense.

It makes sense to me now. See how a little more communication can help?

No need to be so wordy, though, but I think that's your style and I try to cope with it. I just need to see what makes sense to me until I am sure that I get it.

[Ahab]

And I was asked to tell you that everything on Kolob is just peachy.

That's good for me to know. I love peaches.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps an example might explain this better than my earlier discussion.

Here is an example of truth as I view it. To me I accept it as the standard for any commentary by scientists that might relate to the ideology. I think, based on my research that I am being generous to say that as near a period of time as even 20 years ago this thought was pure poppycock.

When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, 20. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

Okay, so to be clear, this observation of Brigham’s is my standard, I neither need to prove it or accept anything that science says is contrary to it. Up until recently the incredulous stares of science could not even consider a possibility of how any person could even imagine such a cosmology. However, because I have accepted that revelation is real and Brigham possessed it as a tool for understanding that science has never had I have known and believed in a priniciple of truth far longer than science would ever have admitted a possibility.

Now let’s look at some possibilities. These may or may not be true to me. They can fit under the umbrella of the Brigham Young statement and they add a bit of tangible evidenced for something that prophets casually mentioned in front of a group of hundreds over a hundred years ago. So they stand only so long as they do not conflict with the standard.

Now, Vanderbilt astronomers report in the May issue of the Astronomical Journal that they have identified a group of more than 675 stars on the outskirts of the Milky Way that they argue are hypervelocity stars that have been ejected from the galactic core. They selected these stars based on their location in intergalactic space between the Milky Way and the nearby Andromeda galaxy and by their peculiar red coloration.

"These stars really stand out. They are red giant stars with high metallicity which gives them an unusual color," says Assistant Professor Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, who conducted the study with graduate student Lauren Palladino. (http://www.scienceda...20430140033.htm)

Okay, so now science is willing to ponder upon something fascinating, however, would it ever be able to acknowledge any potential in the Brigham Young quote? Absolutely not. Science forbids a God based causality of revelation as a means of knowing anything and even though Brigham should be showing great potential he could not be credited with even an ounce of credibility from a scientific perspective. Nonetheless, had any LDS astronomer wanted to make a splash in say the 1930’s he could of exercised faith and predicted that a time might occur where we could validate planets and suns that move in and out of galactic systems where they did not originate. Of course it might have been the last astronomical observation he made but interesting thought nonetheless.

Let’s examine another scientific thought floating around out there.

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.

What this means is that there is much less oxygen in the interstellar medium than in our own solar system, and this is significant because oxygen and hydrogen are vital for making planets and people (and hydrogen is of course, crucial for making stars). So, where has all the oxygen gone to?

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location. (In First, NASA Probe Detects ‘Alien Matter’ Entering Our Solar System February 1, 2012 By Michael Ricciardi, http://planetsave.co...r-solar-system/)

Is this theory correct? Only insomuch as it continues to sustain potential for upholding Brigham’s observation. Should science alter its view and change its mind, which it is ever wont to do, and deny any possibility of suns relocating into other solar systems, it will not undermine in the least Brigham’s observation for me. Brigham is right and it will only mean that once again science is behind revelation as a tool for understanding cosmology.

As this is just intended to be an example, I’ll go no further but if a person was willing to do some research and combine their research with prayer and pondering this little bit concerning planets and suns that should seem a practical example actually expands in ways that can best be conceived and ordered according to the doctrines of the priesthood. There is a ton more scientific theory being developed around what is now being observed which not only supports Brigham's theory but the thought of hypervelocity stars and planets that finally slow down and get caught in orbits around other suns has become, for some, the best solution for explaining the diversity of elements of composition of an orb that does not match the composition of neighboring orbs in the same system. Where science would have denied the possibility, now it absolutely must embrace the idea to help explain what they now observe.

However, since few can tolerate even what I have posited so far, it would probably be foolish to magnify further. My point is revelation, prophets, scripture is always the foundation and standard to which science must conform or for me it matters not. The choice is the science of proof against faith in God's prophets. It absolutely matters nothing if because we have some possible proof that we are now willing to see potential in prophetic utterance. The requirement of the proof is the condemnation of the person as faithless. I'm even willing to posit that potentially the act of suspending considering the possibility of science and religion as being compatible is equally as potentially a faithless act. So in other words, unless this little example opens even a slight door of possibility and one was willing to see the potential in other statements of prophetic utterance for which we have no proof or for which we have determined the proof invalidates, then we are still but faithless people.

There are some pretty strange statements from prophets out there,I realize that but science cannot dilute my faith in God or his prophets because I long ago determined that it is positively ridicules to attempt to confine an infinite being into the barest of finite thoughts than a man can comprehend. The very concept of God defies our efforts to bind him within our infinitesimally small abilities of comprehension. As well, from a scientific perspective, the only comprehension that man can truly have is the most extreme reach of a finite science. So it is a faithless act to insist He must conform.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

The questions I ask are about what truth is, not about which propositions ARE true. I would wonder what kind of evidence would justify this position for you. You have partially answered it, presuming that certain scientific theories are in fact true, and that your revelations are also true.

Of course you have not answered what truth is, which is the type of question I am interested in. But I think you would see my point of view as among the "philosophies of men" and therefore to be discarded.

My position is that all we can talk about include "philosophies of men" because after all even written revelations are received and expressed by men in language and after all, that is the only mechanism we have to communicate those revelations. We cannot escape cultural perceptions.

But as I have said, my approach I think is quite different than yours. I suspect we will continue to speak passed each other if we try to continue - I am not against it, I am just saying that we live in quite different intellectual universes. You are a metaphysician, I try to speak without using metaphysics.

[SamIam]

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

The questions I ask are about what truth is, not about which propositions ARE true. I would wonder what kind of evidence would justify this position for you. You have partially answered it, presuming that certain scientific theories are in fact true, and that your revelations are also true.

Of course you have not answered what truth is, which is the type of question I am interested in. But I think you would see my point of view as among the "philosophies of men" and therefore to be discarded.

My position is that all we can talk about include "philosophies of men" because after all even written revelations are received and expressed by men in language and after all, that is the only mechanism we have to communicate those revelations. We cannot escape cultural perceptions.

But as I have said, my approach I think is quite different than yours. I suspect we will continue to speak passed each other if we try to continue - I am not against it, I am just saying that we live in quite different intellectual universes. You are a metaphysician, I try to speak without using metaphysics.

This is better by far as there is an actual sense of exchange and not confrontation. We have had this conversation in some degree before, but as we note, we can't remember it all. This is a point though that I think is different for you and where we may talk past each other. Truth is only what something means to God. There is no other qualification for me. However, where I see some putting walls between disciplines of thought to protect the boundaries of each discipline, I feel the imperative to develop and practice on the talent of receiving and hearing and recognizing revelation. In the future, according to President Packer we will not even survive without that ability. So this subject of science and theology is a playground, so to speak to test and develop a talent. I am convinced that God wants me to understand how he sees something and he has and will even to the uniting of science and religion - there is no boundary to what he can unite and I try not to impose any of my own. When you talk about the separation of language and thought and understanding and such, I'm with you all the way up to this point-a requirement to separate disciples of thought. Revelation is the requirement and the expectation of God in my mind to insist that we seek his understanding to bridge all venues of supposed incompatibility it also is the requirement to bridge what you point out as the burden of individuals understanding revelation. The language and its philosophical sense is only the burden of one side not receiving the spirit of the revelation in the same manner in which it was given.

Philosophies of men are two categories for me. One is the presentation of truth, derived from revelation in such a way as to share an idea in an explanatory form to a person or groups of persons where testimony is deemed inappropriate or unreceivable. We do this all too frequently because we want to share truths with others and we hope to reason them into the hearts of others. However, this is always a crap shoot in my opinion. If the spirit cannot confirm the philosophy it remains an external understanding to the individual and is subject to dismissal when the next just as good sounding philosophy comes along. sometimes though it is a venue to encourage others to seek their own revelation and then, seldom as it may be, goes beyond a philosophy of men to that individual and it becomes a truth. This type of philosophizing I see from time to time in this forum because it is the best we can do in this environment.

By far the most common and almost exclusive application is the rational of men in an effort to measure a perspective against finite understanding. It does not recognize a God per se for confirmation of truth, the thoughts may never of even been juxtaposed against God as a standard of truth. These may appear brilliantly derived and seemingly sound, I frequently think that when the scriptures refer to a flattering tongue they often are referencing the tendency of the uninspired to try to win the hearts of men through their unconfirmed philosophies and rational. Even when someone gets in the habit of searching out the wisest of the philosophers, though their reasoning may border on brilliant, it also has to conform to the standards of God to be of worth and as such one should seek revelation on it to move it from the venue of philosophy to the venue of revelation. Without this, then the only standard we are applying is what seems reasonable to the individual based on their life experience as you and I have discussed before. So where you may see that we cannot exactly understand a perspective exactly between us and should have that as an exception of our communicative efforts, I see the possibility that if it is of worth for us to understand each other exactly this is very accomplishable upon the principles of revelation.

My Judaism studies, and scriptural pondering have fed a metaphysical bias as a strong element of my thought processes, though I am not able to accept it entirely as such. It was my hope that my example of hyper velocity planets might illustrate a union of the metaphysical with the natural as a process of thinking through possibilities.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

This is better by far as there is an actual sense of exchange and not confrontation. We have had this conversation in some degree before, but as we note, we can't remember it all. This is a point though that I think is different for you and where we may talk past each other. Truth is only what something means to God. There is no other qualification for me.

I see. In that case, since we are not God we can never know what truth is. Interesting but I am not sure how this works.

However, where I see some putting walls between disciplines of thought to protect the boundaries of each discipline, I feel the imperative to develop and practice on the talent of receiving and hearing and recognizing revelation. In the future, according to President Packer we will not even survive without that ability. So this subject of science and theology is a playground, so to speak to test and develop a talent. I am convinced that God wants me to understand how he sees something and he has and will even to the uniting of science and religion - there is no boundary to what he can unite and I try not to impose any of my own. When you talk about the separation of language and thought and understanding and such, I'm with you all the way up to this point-a requirement to separate disciples of thought. Revelation is the requirement and the expectation of God in my mind to insist that we seek his understanding to bridge all venues of supposed incompatibility it also is the requirement to bridge what you point out as the burden of individuals understanding revelation. The language and its philosophical sense is only the burden of one side not receiving the spirit of the revelation in the same manner in which it was given.

Philosophies of men are two categories for me. One is the presentation of truth, derived from revelation in such a way as to share an idea in an explanatory form to a person or groups of persons where testimony is deemed inappropriate or unreceivable. We do this all too frequently because we want to share truths with others and we hope to reason them into the hearts of others. However, this is always a crap shoot in my opinion. If the spirit cannot confirm the philosophy it remains an external understanding to the individual and is subject to dismissal when the next just as good sounding philosophy comes along. sometimes though it is a venue to encourage others to seek their own revelation and then, seldom as it may be, goes beyond a philosophy of men to that individual and it becomes a truth. This type of philosophizing I see from time to time in this forum because it is the best we can do in this environment.

By far the most common and almost exclusive application is the rational of men in an effort to measure a perspective against finite understanding. It does not recognize a God per se for confirmation of truth, the thoughts may never of even been juxtaposed against God as a standard of truth. These may appear brilliantly derived and seemingly sound, I frequently think that when the scriptures refer to a flattering tongue they often are referencing the tendency of the uninspired to try to win the hearts of men through their unconfirmed philosophies and rational. Even when someone gets in the habit of searching out the wisest of the philosophers, though their reasoning may border on brilliant, it also has to conform to the standards of God to be of worth and as such one should seek revelation on it to move it from the venue of philosophy to the venue of revelation. Without this, then the only standard we are applying is what seems reasonable to the individual based on their life experience as you and I have discussed before. So where you may see that we cannot exactly understand a perspective exactly between us and should have that as an exception of our communicative efforts, I see the possibility that if it is of worth for us to understand each other exactly this is very accomplishable upon the principles of revelation.

My Judaism studies, and scriptural pondering have fed a metaphysical bias as a strong element of my thought processes, though I am not able to accept it entirely as such. It was my hope that my example of hyper velocity planets might illustrate a union of the metaphysical with the natural as a process of thinking through possibilities.

So is any of this the way God sees it, and how would you know that?

If it is not the way God sees it, it is not true.

Are you sure God understands hypervelocity planets the same way you do and that it has the same meaning to him?

Edited September 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

Truth is only what something means to God. .

This one statement jumps out at me and sparks this reaction: This makes even recognizing truth difficult as we (at present) can not even approach God too closely. It makes interpreting it even more difficult and understanding almost impossible.

[Ahab]

I see. In that case, since we are not God we can never know what truth is. Interesting but I am not sure how this works.

In one of 2 ways I can see:

1) with God referring to our Father in heaven, God shares his knowledge with us so we can know what he knows.

2) with God referring to all of us who are the same kind fo being as our Father in heaven, we know by what we observe in reality

There are other ways too, but I think most of them come under one of those 2 ways, which can also be combined into one.

And btw, you already know this stuff, mski. One of your favorite phrases is something about how it's all based on how we communicate with each other and all the rest of reality.

Hence, we're not so much interested in knowing how a grasshopper sees a blade of grass, but how we see the grass and the grasshopper.

Would you like to see my dragon tatoos?

So is any of this the way God sees it, and how would you know that?

We can either observe for ourselves or he can let us know what he sees.

If it is not the way God sees it, it is not true.

He said he was concerned with how God sees things.

Now all you need to think about is who and what God is.

Are you sure God understands hypervelocity planets the same way you do and that it has the same meaning to him?

As someone who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, I'm pretty sure he thinks the same way.

[mfbukowski]

And btw, you already know this stuff, mski. One of your favorite phrases is something about how it's all based on how we communicate with each other and all the rest of reality.

SHHHHH don't tell anyone.

Hence, we're not so much interested in knowing how a grasshopper sees a blade of grass, but how we see the grass and the grasshopper.

Why not? One of my favorite all time articles is What Is It Like To Be a Bat. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Thomas_Nagel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

On the other hand, bats eat grasshoppers so maybe I am not that interested in being eaten by one anyway.

Would you like to see my dragon tatoos?

It depends on where they are, but most likely, not.

Edited September 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

It depends on where they are, but most likely, not.

They're on my arms in my imagination... like those on the grasshopper in the Kung Fu TV series.

I'm guessing you've already seen them.

[mfbukowski]

They're on my arms in my imagination... like those on the grasshopper in the Kung Fu TV series.

I'm guessing you've already seen them.

I'm far too young to know what you're talking about.

[SamIam]

I see. In that case, since we are not God we can never know what truth is. Interesting but I am not sure how this works.

So is any of this the way God sees it, and how would you know that?

We have arrived...

This is the point of greatest distinction between the philosophy that says we must divide and live and let live or believing Christ that we can know something according to the precept of "if any of you lack wisdom".... This is the place where science drops off of it's flat earth model and we must embrace all things of one eternal round.

It is based upon principles that usually we only gradually acquire and so that, combined with the weakness of most people to be willing to accept the requirement of faith, places us in a process of what is initially a very foggy place.

However, lets skip that for the moment and consider the point. We as a people get somewhat detached from revelation because what we read in scripture does not coincide with what we experience in real life. Nephi, Alma, Abinidi, King Benjamin etc. talk about visions, angels, voices, heavenly messengers all sorts of things that allows them to say I know, the voice said, it was made known, and we expect that if we try according to what the scriptures say we should have the same. We don't, we just get Paul - we see through a glass darkly.

The point is this one thing. The very first commandment we receive immediately after baptism from the servant of the Lord is one phrase - receive the Holy ghost. So many, in fact huge numbers of members, take this pronouncement to be that they have been given the Holy Ghost when really the command is, in long form, prepare yourselves to be clean vessels that I can give you the gift of the Holy Ghost to dwell in your sacred temple space.

Almost exclusively, the good guys in the scriptures are those that have actually received the Holy Ghost and they hear the voice, they receive the messengers that bring the clarity we so crave in knowing. Instead what most usually do is go back to our lives, directing our own paths and trying to force our way to understand the things of God without doing the Enos thing. Then because we did not receive the very first commandment of the Lord and we reject his command we are subject to a restricted view that may slowly improve over time but is only handicapped because we do not obey.

Because of the sense of not knowing that becomes our lot in the church we have to develop philosophies like yours. I know enough about God and Jesus Christ to know I have to protect my testimony from this other stuff that would threaten it if I did not keep it distant in some way. We do not receive revelation like is described in the scriptures and that alone subconsciously builds a tendency to not even believe we can about anything let alone seemingly distinctly different things like science that has it's own metaphorical symbolic language. What is a barrier to man is no problem for revelation as God even speaks metaphorical as well as English. However, if we are not developing our capacity for revelation we never ever understand metaphorical in the way God does.

It is the very first commandment and until we do it we are in rebellion is as plain as I can put the idea of "receive the Holy Ghost."

If it is not the way God sees it, it is not true.

When that day arrives or even as you draw closer to the actual receipt of the spirit all along it is becoming more and more clear what something means to God. You are actually grasping things in a way that is clearly beyond the understanding of men and it will have as it's backbone association with certain spiritual / scriptural principles. You are not getting a fullness and I do not mean to imply I think I have a fullness of understanding on much of anything but line upon line precept upon precept is layers of truth that sustain more and more layers of truth as you lay them down. So as you eagerly plead and seek the gift of the born again experience you will already begin sensing the voice of the spirit which will teach you. At first you will question your voice in your mind or its voice but over time if you diligently drive forward and do not quit out of fear or frustration it becomes more and more clear until you can see how Nephi and Enos experience conversations of expanded understandings of things as God sees them.

Are you sure God understands hypervelocity planets the same way you do and that it has the same meaning to him?

A key. You can always tell when somebody shares understanding of things along the path of the Lord because they associate things in a Godly fashion according to the pattern of spiritual significance. I said earlier that I now understood the doctrine of the priesthood a hundred fold better than I ever understood before. That was me using the language that would have triggered understanding in anybody else that even had a clue of what I was talking about and the conversation would have gone an entirely different direction. We do this usually somewhat sub-conscientiously through the spirit but overtime like anything else we learn how to communicate in purity by such keys of understanding. You can't understand what I meant unless you have had the same revelation. Albeit we may differ in degree of fullness of understanding if we were both aligned we would then be able to edify one another and both would be improved.

Because of how the spirit expanded my mind in areas I could never have fathomed and it was along the lines of understanding principles of the gospel, I know that God and I share an understanding of hyper velocity. Still His is a fulness and mine but a drop, it is the principle that future lines upon lines will build as I further gain more understanding of truth as God understands it because he understands it upon principles of priesthood and governance - portions of the doctrine of the priesthood.

Finally, the ultimate value of me having put the many hours which I continue with in making these connections with theology and science has been that already I have had conversations with others who had begun to falter in their testimony along the lines of the science theology divide. They have not been able to put a gulf between them as you have done to keep science and theology separate but they were under attack precisely because we have what scientists claim to see in competition with what we must have faith in to believe. With just the little bit of understanding I have gained it has helped calm a down hill path out of the church for others. This then is why it matters and probably the only principle upon which I could expect revelation because I want to align my knowledge base with working in the kingdom. You told me in the beginning that I should seek the approval of the scientists on this board to tell me if what I said made any sense. That was never the point nor am i convinced it is even possible. The saints are under attack and the testimonies of the saints are in dire straights sometimes over this very issue of the science and theology debate. It is not just the knowing that matters to me it is that because I know I can contribute to the building of the kingdom of God and that is all that matters to me anyway.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

This one statement jumps out at me and sparks this reaction: This makes even recognizing truth difficult as we (at present) can not even approach God too closely. It makes interpreting it even more difficult and understanding almost impossible.

ERayR please see post #122, let me know if it does not clarify my perspective on this question.

[Ahab]

The saints are under attack and the testimonies of the saints are in dire straights sometimes over this very issue of the science and theology debate. It is not just the knowing that matters to me it is that because I know I can contribute to the building of the kingdom of God and that is all that matters to me anyway.

What do you think works best when trying to help someone whose testimony you perceive to be in dire straits over science and theology?

I think it helps at least a little to talk about how science and theology can be used together to understand the things of God, along with the rest of reality.

What we all need is to hear from God while knowing what is good, and then we just need to believe what he/they tell us.

How do you help someone do that when they already have a testimony, if you mean a testimony from God?

By somehow helping them to remember what they already know which God has already told them, maybe?

For those who don't have a testimony from God, I think they just need to get one, ASAP, and then just hang on to what they know he has said. It's all about whether or not we will believe God.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Ahab

[SamIam]

What do you think works best when trying to help someone whose testimony you perceive to be in dire straits over science and theology?

I think it helps at least a little to talk about how science and theology can be used together to understand the things of God.

What we all need is to hear from God while knowing who is God, and then we just need to believe what he/they tell us.

How do you help someone do that when they already have a testimony, if you mean a testimony from God?

By somehow helping them to remember what they already know which God has already told them, I think.

For those who don't have a testimony from God, they just need to get one, ASAP, and then hang on to what you know he has said.

If differs for each person and as in all things requires specific spiritual guidance. The very first person was a man I work with who is a geologist. His mind and thinking have been so trained in customary education requirements that he was like many who compartmentalize his belief of theology as submissive to science. Over a period of months, we would embrace a little here and a little there of the things that I was being taught by the spirit and how they related to things that he saw as conflicting with theology.

As stated this man is a scientist and is ten times brighter than I am, but he could sense that what I know spiritually could not be discounted summarily as is the usual case. Slowly and surely he has begun to see the cosmos as a testimony of God as opposed to a witness against Him.