Stone holm Posted June 16, 2013 Author Posted June 16, 2013 Works for me. But JS surely did not have remotely close perceptions about "who" GtF Is. There's a huge difference between saying that all intelligence has eternally existed, and GtF is "more intelligent than they all", and asserting (as you and I do) that GtF is merely a manifestation/creation coming out of "God being all [of] existence"."Mormon mysticism" allows that none of us really knows what s/he is talking about when we try to define what "God" Is, because we use finite terms to try and describe the Infinite....Was with you until the last part.
Questing Beast Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 Was with you until the last part.The "last part" sums up the first part, so you were not "with" me at all it seems.Logically, a finite mind cannot comprehend an Infinite mind. If you think that GtF is somehow finite as well, then you have not been reading your scriptures enough. All references to inheriting "all that the Father has" does not imply that we somehow acquire all of his knowledge or awareness. If JS's theology carries such concept to you, either you are mistaken or JS was mistaken. I think that JS was constantly evolving his theology, and the Church is more or less stuck where JS left off. So anyone asserting that GtF is the whole of Existence is extrapolating, because that is not what JS taught. Or anyone asserting that there was no Cause behind existence, it just is, renders GtF into something like a dissembler, because the scriptures clearly state that "God" is the only One, and beside him there is no other; that means no other "gods" before and we will not be "Gods" (big "G") after; there is no other beside God....
Stone holm Posted June 16, 2013 Author Posted June 16, 2013 The "last part" sums up the first part, so you were not "with" me at all it seems.Logically, a finite mind cannot comprehend an Infinite mind. If you think that GtF is somehow finite as well, then you have not been reading your scriptures enough. All references to inheriting "all that the Father has" does not imply that we somehow acquire all of his knowledge or awareness. If JS's theology carries such concept to you, either you are mistaken or JS was mistaken. I think that JS was constantly evolving his theology, and the Church is more or less stuck where JS left off. So anyone asserting that GtF is the whole of Existence is extrapolating, because that is not what JS taught. Or anyone asserting that there was no Cause behind existence, it just is, renders GtF into something like a dissembler, because the scriptures clearly state that "God" is the only One, and beside him there is no other; that means no other "gods" before and we will not be "Gods" (big "G") after; there is no other beside God....I think I have said before that I doubt we will ever catch up with ou Heavenly Father because He is eternally progressing just like His Father before Him ad infinitum .
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 This is off-topic, but how much sound is there in space? You can fit what I know about aural physics into a thimble, but I thought I remember hearing from the guys who'd spent a fair amount of time there that since space lacks atmosphere, sound doesn't travel well at all. I think these ideas are on topic because I'm thinking as I searched through space to see where we came from I'd be seeing everything there is to see out there while also trying to listen to everything I saw and passed by. So I'm thinking that as I passed by some stars, which I would want to pass by because I would want to see what is there on those spheres, I'd be hearing some sounds of some solar eruptions from sun spikes and probably also some sounds from nebulas and planets and some satellites around planets as well as some radio waves. I've heard that sounds like radio waves keep traveling forever and all we need is enough amplification to be able to hear all of the sounds that are out there, even the sounds from this planet a long time ago which are still traveling deeper into the universe.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 \There's a difference between God "Big-G," and god "little-g." We will always be subordinate to Him. See how well that works? The big G and little g don't really make any difference as far as us being the same kind of being he (our Father) is. We will always be subject to him in the same sense that our children will always be subject to us. That's what being a Father is all about.
ERayR Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 The big G and little g don't really make any difference as far as us being the same kind of being he (our Father) is. We will always be subject to him in the same sense that our children will always be subject to us. That's what being a Father is all about.Well there you go destroying every thing. My kids simply refuse to be my subjects.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 One of my favorite things in Brent and Wendy Tops' book, "Beyond Death's Door" where they documented their research findings in regard to near death experiences of non-LDS individuals, is that nearly all who experienced an NDE and were interviewed mentioned the beautiful "heavenly music." They all reported that it was "not music as we know it... that they had never heard anything like it before... a soothing symphony of indescribable beauty... music so beautiful that no composer could duplicate it... Bach is only the beginning!... soothing, gentle and warm and seemed to come from a source deep within me... powerful but somehow soothing... a rushing, moving sound, unlike anything I could remember, but familiar, just on the edge of my memory... I could describe it as a combination of vibrations..."When I was an ordinance worker, I sometimes would find myself alone as I walked down a hallway on my way to my next assignment... and I would pray for the privilege of hearing the "heavenly music"... though I felt the Spirit, I was not able to hear the music...In this dispensation, the Lord declared, "For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart, yea the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me..."GGExactly, so if some people have their radios turned on, listening to Bach or whatever as they travel through space, they might miss out on the natural sounds that others will hear as they travel through space because they won't have that other music to distract them. I'd be kinda like walking through the temple while listening to an ipod playing some music.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Well there you go destroying every thing. My kids simply refuse to be my subjects.Once they're sealed to you they can't avoid it unless they choose to reject their sealing to you, and most won't do that when they understand that it would also cut them off from being sealed to their own children. That's the purpose of having those binding ties. Children are always subject to their parents in the sense that those parents are always pre-eminent in the family relationship.
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Author Posted June 17, 2013 Well there you go destroying every thing. My kids simply refuse to be my subjects.Don't feel bad apparently 1/3rd of Elohim's also refused.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 We sang a commercial arrangement of this hymn as a ward choir. The arrangement had substituted the word "heaven" for "Kolob," probably to make it palatable for prospective non-Mormon purchasers. I protested this adulteration of Phelps's words and urged that we be true to the original wording. The choir director agreed with me, and we sang it with "Kolob." 1
Stone holm Posted June 18, 2013 Author Posted June 18, 2013 We sang a commercial arrangement of this hymn as a ward choir. The arrangement had substituted the word "heaven" for "Kolob," probably to make it palatable for prospective non-Mormon purchasers. I protested this adulteration of Phelps's words and urged that we be true to the original wording. The choir director agreed with me, and we sang it with "Kolob."So did it offend?
Questing Beast Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 The big G and little g don't really make any difference as far as us being the same kind of being he (our Father) is. We will always be subject to him in the same sense that our children will always be subject to us. That's what being a Father is all about.Heh, my children are not remotely "subject to me". Nobody's children are subject to them. That may be true in past cultures, but this planet is fast becoming "Westernized", where children are not subject to anyone but the "State". We all dance and answer to the same "authorities" and must live by the same set of caveats, or suffer consequences. In the hereafter, each person will be subject to no one but "God", the Author of our Existence....
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Heh, my children are not remotely "subject to me". Nobody's children are subject to them. That may be true in past cultures, but this planet is fast becoming "Westernized", where children are not subject to anyone but the "State". We all dance and answer to the same "authorities" and must live by the same set of caveats, or suffer consequences. In the hereafter, each person will be subject to no one but "God", the Author of our Existence....Think about it some more. Without you they wouldn't have been born. Their spirits may have had the opportunity to be born to other parents, but even if they had been they would not be the same people they are now. And more importantly, they weren't. They have a part of you in them, and a part of their Mother as well, and because of that they are subject to you in the sense that they are step down the line in the family tree with you always have the dominant position over them as their parents. They may not choose to acknowledge that fact but that is a fact, anyway. And in the same way our Father in heaven has a dominant position over all of us, too, even if we get to the point where we are as perfect as he is.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) So did it offend?Not to my knowledge.Incidentally, I've just been called as ward choir director. I get to call the shots now. I think I'll have us sing some of the lesser known hymns in the hymnbook, including ones that might rattle anti-Mormons, such as "Adam-ondi-Ahman."And I want to find a nice choir arrangement of "Praise to the Man." I think I'll have us perform it near the anniversary of the martyrdom. That's a year off, so we'll have plenty of time to prepare. Edited June 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Not to my knowledge.Incidentally, I've just been called as ward choir director. I get to call the shots now. I think I'll have us sing some of the lesser known hymns in the hymnbook, including ones that might rattle anti-Mormons, such as "Adam-ondi-Ahman."And I want to find a nice choir arrangement of "Praise to the Man." I think I'll have us perform it near the anniversary of the martyrdom. That's a year off, so we'll have plenty of time to prepare.Are we calling this board a ward now? How exactly are you going to get everybody to sing what you want us to sing?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Are we calling this board a ward now? How exactly are you going to get everybody to sing what you want us to sing?lol. No, Ahab, I was not referring to the board. I was referring to my own ward choir, the one of which I am now director.You may sing what you like, if you sing at all.(Am I really that turbid in how I communicate?)Although, now that you mention it, the notion of a choir made up of MDDB participants is a tad interesting.
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (Am I really that turbid in how I communicate?)No, I was trying to be funny. Everybody wants to be a comedian, don't cha know. Even me.Although, now that you mention it, the notion of a choir made up of MDDB participants is a tad interesting.Yeah. Uh huh. Good luck with that one. Maybe you could do a collage with You Tube video excerpts, or something like that.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 No, I was trying to be funny. Everybody wants to be a comedian, don't cha know. Even me.Got it. I'm not turbid -- just obtuse.
Stone holm Posted June 18, 2013 Author Posted June 18, 2013 So. Do you all think that this Hymn will survive in the next edition of the Hymnbook or do you think it is too "Mormon" to fit into the current PR projections?
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Got it. I'm not turbid -- just obtuse. Hey, if you laughed out loud, you got what I meant. You just didn't know that's what I intended to happen.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 So. Do you all think that this Hymn will survive in the next edition of the Hymnbook or do you think it is too "Mormon" to fit into the current PR projections?You seem to be under the impression the Church is embarrassed by uniquely Mormon teachings. I don't see that at all.
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Has anyone elaborated on the word "hie" in this song? Was that word in vogue back then as a general term for travel or is it the word God uses to refer to his form of travel? To hie in the blink of an eye all the way to Kolob would be quite a rush, I imagine.
Questing Beast Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Think about it some more. Without you they wouldn't have been born. Their spirits may have had the opportunity to be born to other parents, but even if they had been they would not be the same people they are now. And more importantly, they weren't. They have a part of you in them, and a part of their Mother as well, and because of that they are subject to you in the sense that they are step down the line in the family tree with you always have the dominant position over them as their parents. They may not choose to acknowledge that fact but that is a fact, anyway. And in the same way our Father in heaven has a dominant position over all of us, too, even if we get to the point where we are as perfect as he is."Being there" first is not de facto a dominant position. Each individual has his/her own egocentric life, beholden to no one, but possessing the same obligations to play well with others, including parents. Children do not occupy a subservient or inferior position in any way and never have. That does not stop some parents, even now, from feeling like they somehow own, control or command their children....
Ahab Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 "Being there" first is not de facto a dominant position. Each individual has his/her own egocentric life, beholden to no one, but possessing the same obligations to play well with others, including parents. Children do not occupy a subservient or inferior position in any way and never have. That does not stop some parents, even now, from feeling like they somehow own, control or command their children....I'll chalk this up as something else you just don't understand.
Questing Beast Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I'll chalk this up as something else you just don't understand.Well, that makes two of us....
Recommended Posts