Where Did Earth's Moon Come From? (According To Mormons)

[saemo]

When you use the word "God" try substituting the word "we" in it's place, or if that's too big of a stretch for you then substitute the word "God" with "our Father" or "our Lord" while realizing they are people, real people, more perfect and more intelligent than us in our mortal bodies right now but still people who are the same kind of being we are and the embodiment of the best kind of people we can possibly be.

Heck, we can create time as mortals right now, and it is something that we are outside of. Time is simply a tool for measuring existence and we can adjust our time cycles by whatever we choose to measure against. Daylight savings time, for example, based roughly on lunar cycles. We would still exist if we didn't use time to measure things. Now you just need to learn that everything that exists has always existed in some form or fashion, including God.

You are not God.

I ran this idea past my husband, who has a science degree, and he wanted to ask if your God is antimatter, in order to survive residence in a supermassive black hole.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

Heck, we can create time as mortals right now, and it is something that we are outside of...

 

Not exactly, friend.

 

We mortals have a problem with sequencing. We can only comprehend "time"

as a moving pointer, always pointing in the same direction -----> forward.

 

Imagine, if you can, a situation in which an entire sequence of events could

be depicted simultaneously. Imagine an old-fashioned reel of movie film

laid out along a roadway, and yourself up above the long strip of film images,

With excellent vision (or with something to make your vision excellent) you

are able to comprehend each image at once -- from the opening title at

the beginning all the way to the final "the end."

 

From your position up above the long (very long) sequence of images, you

are able to view them going forward ------> one at a time; or going backwards

<-------- like a projector running in reverse. You can also view one image here,

and another there, at random  <-----> <------> <----->

 

Works fine with a strip of movie film. But attempt to do the same in your imagination

Run the past five minutes of your life "backwards" -- it's a difficult mental trick.

 

Now try to recall each and every movement you made during the past five minutes,

all at once. Thousands of little eye-blinks and breaths -- thoughts and words --

an itch here and a scratch there.

 

Like I said, we mortals do best just thinking of time moving forward ------> and

trusting to our memory (and our photo albums on the smart phone) to recall

very tiny bits of the past.

 

To truly create time, you'd have to run it backwards, and sideways, and inside

out. Make everything happen at once, and then use your magician's "sort"

function to arrange and re-arrange the infinite spreadsheet of existence.

 

Zen monks do it -- by not doing it.

But a negative is a difficult proposition to prove.

 

UD

[saemo]

I am reminded of one of our good Bishop's homilies, where he pointed out that God gifted us what we need to measure time. To the subject of the thread, the moon itself, that humans have used for millennia to mark and plan time. The measurement of a day by the rising and setting of sun. Etc.

Measuring time is not the same as creating time.

Astrophysicists say that time does not exist at all, but is only an illusion.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

Astrophysicists say that time does not exist at all, but is only an illusion.

 

 

.

Probably some particle physicists would agree.

 

Or, at least tell us that the smallest imaginable bits of

matter do not obey our rules of time, and seem to

skitter about, as though there were no tomorrow.

 

Best hope for a time-machine lies at the sub-quark

level of what we presumptuously say is "reality."

 

Who is to say that God does not comprehend each and

every micro-event as one singularity. The falling of a

sparrow and the explosion of a supernova -- not as two

different events; nor as events, even.

 

The Mormons tell me that "above" their God sits the grand

Council of Gods -- and, at that level, the cosmic administrative

organization chart tops off. Nothing superior to that uncountable

council. But a council trapped in time-space, just like the lowliest

worm on a fisherman's hook. Objects in an endless sea of objects.

 

God as an object seems just a trifle idolatrous to me. And God

trapped in an hourglass, a devolution from Jeremiah and Isaiah's

visionary viewpoint.

 

UD

[saemo]

.

Probably some particle physicists would agree.

Or, at least tell us that the smallest imaginable bits of

matter do not obey our rules of time, and seem to

skitter about, as though there were no tomorrow.

Best hope for a time-machine lies at the sub-quark

level of what we presumptuously say is "reality."

Who is to say that God does not comprehend each and

every micro-event as one singularity. The falling of a

sparrow and the explosion of a supernova -- not as two

different events; nor as events, even.

The Mormons tell me that "above" their God sits the grand

Council of Gods -- and, at that level, the cosmic administrative

organization chart tops off. Nothing superior to that uncountable

council. But a council trapped in time-space, just like the lowliest

worm on a fisherman's hook. Objects in an endless sea of objects.

God as an object seems just a trifle idolatrous to me. And God

trapped in an hourglass, a devolution from Jeremiah and Isaiah's

visionary viewpoint.

UD

That is my belief of God and time, that is, that God is the creator of time and therefore exists outside of it. The best analogy I've read is creation as a painting, and we live and see the brush strokes of our time, and examine the brush strokes laid down in our human past, and anticipate the brushstroke of what's next (all of creation groans in anticipation for the most truly important Next). But God sees the whole painting at once.

After reading this, I was on my drive to work one day, up the canyon and it was a beautiful summer morning. And I had this thought of every moment being created by God, and that the next moment of my drive, the next moment of the beauty I was driving through, did not exist until He created it. Just for me, was my narcissistic thought, but it was a nice philosophical moment for me.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

My further thought, is aligned to the philosophical question, why is there something instead of nothing. We take for granted the next moment is going to exist, but why? It is one of the major reasons why I left atheism for theism. The first cause without a cause makes more sense to me than believing that every next moment has no cause.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[Uncle Dale]

My further thought, is aligned to the philosophical question, why is there something instead of nothing. We take for granted the next moment is going to exist, but why? It is one of the major reasons why I left atheism for theism. The first cause without a cause makes more sense to me than believing that every next moment has no cause.

 

 

Then there are the virtual particles -- now you see them

and now you don't. First there is "some"thing and then

there is "no"thing -- and then "some"thing, again.

 

But nobody can say for certain that the reappearing "thing"

is the same as the disappearing "thing."

 

There is some sort of problem with our entire concept of

things -- of distinct objects, or distinct ideas. And, as Plato

might tell us, the idea is the parent of the thing.

 

Why is there not nothing?

 

Were that the situation, then the world "is" would have to

be inappropriate. "There is nothing" is an oxymoron. Better

to say "If the thing wasn't" -- but even that attempted solution

get us nowhere fast.

 

Suppose in endless space there was but one "thing" -- say a

photon or perhaps a stray electron. Would that tiny particle

be a "thing" at all, if it could not be compared to a second

thing? Put two such particles into that empty space and

suddenly existence itself become a reality.

 

I've been asked, "Is there a god?" -- The indefinite article,

"a" presupposes that such a god would be one, unspecial

entity, among a possible host of other entities.

 

"Is there the god?" gets us closer. But perhaps the better

query would ask:

 

Is God?

 

and the answer

 

God is.

 

would be sufficient.

 

What the answer of "God is not" could convey, lies beyond

my ability to imagine.

 

UD

Edited March 13, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[saemo]

Then there are the virtual particles -- now you see them

and now you don't. First there is "some"thing and then

there is "no"thing -- and then "some"thing, again.

 

But nobody can say for certain that the reappearing "thing"

is the same as the disappearing "thing."

 

There is some sort of problem with our entire concept of

things -- of distinct objects, or distinct ideas. And, as Plato

might tell us, the idea is the parent of the thing.

 

Why is there not nothing?

 

Were that the situation, then the world "is" would have to

be inappropriate. "There is nothing" is an oxymoron. Better

to say "If the thing wasn't" -- but even that attempted solution

get us nowhere fast.

 

Suppose in endless space there was but one "thing" -- say a

photon or perhaps a stray electron. Would that tiny particle

be a "thing" at all, if it could not be compared to a second

thing? Put two such particles into that empty space and

suddenly existence itself become a reality.

 

I've been asked, "Is there a god?" -- The indefinite article,

"a" presupposes that such a god would be one, unspecial

entity, among a possible host of other entities.

 

"Is there the god?" gets us closer. But perhaps the better

query would ask:

 

Is God?

 

and the answer

 

God is.

 

would be sufficient.

 

What the answer of "God is not" could convey, lies beyond

my ability to imagine.

 

UD

I AM. Is what God named Himself when Moses asked for a name to give to the Hebrews. "God Is", is very solidly what I believe.

I was a right and proper nihilist in my atheist years. No thing, was my view of the world then until I decided to discover if there are some things. Ha. Those were the days. I'm glad that is over.

[saemo]

Oh yeah, also why the Trinity makes sense to me, because God as an aloneness doesn't make sense, as pertains to your question if a single particle existing without something else. Also why I believe God Is Creator. But my eastern leaning philosophy study shows, in the concept of being rather than doing. God's being is Creator, not merely something that gets done, and that is solidly Catholic. So I found the some thing I needed.

Well, super late here and I'd rather be in Hawaii. That would be something. Nice discussion while all others are snoozing. Goodnight.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[Uncle Dale]

I AM. Is what God named Himself when Moses asked for a name to give to the Hebrews. "God Is", is very solidly what I believe.

...

 

.

I have the suspicion that the name was a lucky coincidence --

the monotheistic Midianite deity being Yah, which came out

very very close to the ancient Hebrew "I am."

 

However the name came about, it was a fortunate turn of

events. A biblical Dagon or Moloch (or even just plain Baal)

would not have been anywhere near so thought-provoking

as the "I am." If the ancient Israelites struggled to understand

such a name, that struggle led away from polytheism and

henotheism, to the radical monotheism of late 2nd Temple

Judaism -- a basic theology inherited by the Christians.

 

"Before Abraham was, I am..."

 

That has a timeless quality to it -- a theology of the here and now;

rather than of the there and then.

 

Just the sort of realization that I suspect a successful Jesus parable

had upon attentive listeners -- an effect rendered in the present

instant, and not a puzzle to be pondered, nor simply a pithy saying.

 

UD

[saemo]

.

I have the suspicion that the name was a lucky coincidence --

the monotheistic Midianite deity being Yah, which came out

very very close to the ancient Hebrew "I am."

 

However the name came about, it was a fortunate turn of

events. A biblical Dagon or Moloch (or even just plain Baal)

would not have been anywhere near so thought-provoking

as the "I am." If the ancient Israelites struggled to understand

such a name, that struggle led away from polytheism and

henotheism, to the radical monotheism of late 2nd Temple

Judaism -- a basic theology inherited by the Christians.

 

"Before Abraham was, I am..."

 

That has a timeless quality to it -- a theology of the here and now;

rather than of the there and then.

 

Just the sort of realization that I suspect a successful Jesus parable

had upon attentive listeners -- an effect rendered in the present

instant, and not a puzzle to be pondered, nor simply a pithy saying.

 

UD

It had en effect when Jesus told the Pharisees I AM. They wanted to stone Him for His blasphemy of naming Himself God. Ultimately, it is what led to His Crucifixion.

[rodheadlee]

Registered Trademark, U.S. Pat. Of. No. 666

Licensing fees for "Oh well" are 1 cent per use,

minimum contract, one billion uses.

 

 

 

.

Oh Well Industries and Worldwide Conglomerate, Inc., Ltd, Etc.

Pay at once -- this will be your only warning.

Fleetwood Mac beat you to it.

 

"Oh Well"

 

I can't help about the shape I'm in

I can't sing, I ain't pretty and my legs are thin

But don't ask me what I think of you

I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well

Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand

He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand

But don't ask me what I think of you

I might not give the answer that you want me to"

Oh well 

[mfbukowski]

As a Catholic, God as the creator of time and existing outside of it, with body or not, makes way more sense to me than intragalactic super humans who move planets with their super powers and reside in supermassive black holes (seriously?). Sorry, the whole idea just sounds make believe to me.

Well I have a problem with the way you put that as well, and I certainly don't believe anything like that.  I don't watch cartoons a whole lot, nor do I take them as if they were intended to be documentaries. In fact when my kids watch them, I see them as parables- not good ones, but parables about good vs evil.

 

On the other hand, to reciprocate your caricature, I don't think Christ's whole body can fit into a wafer of bread either.

[saemo]

Well I have a problem with the way you put that as well, and I certainly don't believe anything like that.  I don't watch cartoons a whole lot, nor do I take them as if they were intended to be documentaries. In fact when my kids watch them, I see them as parables- not good ones, but parables about good vs evil.

 

On the other hand, to reciprocate your caricature, I don't think Christ's whole body can fit into a wafer of bread either.

 

That is your view of what Ahab said. What I get from Ahab, and he can correct me if I am wrong, is a literal view of a God who is like himself, living in a supermassive black hole. I didn't catch any of the mystical connotations that you've added to Ahab's expressed belief. So you are arguing against something I never asserted. 

 

I've never gotten the idea that LDS belief is anything but literal about heaven. It is a literal place, literally in what we know as time and space, as literal as the house I live in. Mystical ideas of heaven I don't see as the LDS "thing", per its official teachings. Which as I understand it is, that heaven is mysterious because you can't remember it. Like the childhood home where you were moved from as an infant. You know it was there but you can't remember it. Nothing mystical in that. As a mystical heaven, individual believers, of course can be all over the map.

 

In short, I was commenting on what Ahab said, not what you believe. Your POV is irrelevant to what Ahab believes as you are not Ahab.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[Ahab]

Just a few thoughts:

Rewinding a clock is time going backwards; the exact moment of present existence still existing even if there were no clocks to measure that (this) moment; and a clock going forward is time going forward. So as I was saying, time is simply a tool to measure existence, rather than existence itself.

And you can bet your sweet tootie that God knows what happens in all moments of existence.

[Ahab]

That is your view of what Ahab said. What I get from Ahab, and he can correct me if I am wrong, is a literal view of a God who is like himself, living in a supermassive black hole. I didn't catch any of the mystical connotations that you've added to Ahab's expressed belief. So you are arguing against something I never asserted.

I've never gotten the idea that LDS belief is anything but literal about heaven. It is a literal place, literally in what we know as time and space, as literal as the house I live in. Mystical ideas of heaven I don't see as the LDS "thing", per its official teachings. Which as I understand it is, that heaven is mysterious because you can't remember it. Like the childhood home where you were moved from as an infant. You know it was there but you can't remember it. Nothing mystical in that. As a mystical heaven, individual believers, of course can be all over the map.

In short, I was commenting on what Ahab said, not what you believe. Your POV is irrelevant to what Ahab believes as you are not Ahab.

I said nothing about a supermassive black hole so don't attribute that thought to me.

There are planets and suns and moons and many other things in the center regions of galaxies and I don't know why your mind went to supermassive black holes but it wasn't because I mentioned them.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Ahab

[saemo]

I said nothing about a supermassive black hole so don't attribute that thought to me.

There are planets and suns and moons and many other things in the centers of galaxies so I don't know why your mind went to supermassive black holes but it wasn't because I mentioned them.

That is what is a the center of many galaxies, including our own, and it is what causes the center of the galaxies we look at to shine so brightly. Sure, God is the cause of the intense light, but that intense light is a creation of God, and is not God. Gravity, the interaction of matter and antimatter, is what causes the intense light at the center of a galaxy.. It is an inhospitable place for life. No object remains in the state in which it is in the center of a galaxy, except the supermassive black hole itself. Rationally, if your God is at the center of our Galaxy, he is either the supermassive black hole itself, or what comprises it (antimatter). 

 

ETA, the planets, moons and stars that are clustered tightly around the center of the galaxy are being pulled by the gravity of the black hole into itself, where they will be torn apart and cease to exist.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

That is your view of what Ahab said. What I get from Ahab, and he can correct me if I am wrong, is a literal view of a God who is like himself, living in a supermassive black hole. I didn't catch any of the mystical connotations that you've added to Ahab's expressed belief. So you are arguing against something I never asserted. 

 

I've never gotten the idea that LDS belief is anything but literal about heaven. It is a literal place, literally in what we know as time and space, as literal as the house I live in. Mystical ideas of heaven I don't see as the LDS "thing", per its official teachings. Which as I understand it is, that heaven is mysterious because you can't remember it. Like the childhood home where you were moved from as an infant. You know it was there but you can't remember it. Nothing mystical in that. As a mystical heaven, individual believers, of course can be all over the map.

 

In short, I was commenting on what Ahab said, not what you believe. Your POV is irrelevant to what Ahab believes as you are not Ahab.

What you know of Mormonism came out of a primary manual- years ago.

 

Putting it in Catholic terms, it is as if a Catholic's view of his church ended after his first communion at age 7.   THAT is your view of Mormonism.

 

We do have some sophisticated adults here, and do not need to be thought of as children.

 

And you never got to the temple, so forget what you think you know about anything "mystical"

Edited March 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Catholic cathedrals had stained windows with bible stories on them so that the illiterate masses could go to church and have someone point to the pictures and tell the stories so they could learn about God and remember the stories to teach them to their children.  No windows, no stories.  You can't read or write.  You live in the fields.  God is in the church in shining colors like heaven

 

The church has to be big and grand because he is big and grand.  It's his house after all.   The priest gets to talk to him and speaks a mysterious foreign ancient language.  Surely that is God isn't it??

 

We are a bit better educated in most circumstances today. 

Edited March 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[saemo]

What you know of Mormonism came out of a primary manual- years ago.

 

Putting it in Catholic terms, it is as if a Catholic's view of his church ended after his first communion at age 7.   THAT is your view of Mormonism.

 

We do have some sophisticated adults here, and do not need to be thought of as children.

 

And you never got to the temple, so forget what you think you know about anything "mystical"

Why are you talking to me?

 

Yeah, sure, I left Mormonism at age 7 before I was even baptized. 

 

And pulling out the super secret Mormon temple card...puhleeze, there is no official interpretation of your temple worship. It is ENTIRELY up to your personal interpretation. And since you can't even compare what you've decided is the correct interpretation to any other's personal interpretation, you can't say that what I know is comparable to anything but to yourself. 

 

All about you. As I said, I wasn't responding to what you believe.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo

[mnn727]

 

The Mormons tell me that "above" their God sits the grand

Council of Gods -- and, at that level, the cosmic administrative

organization chart tops off. Nothing superior to that uncountable

council. But a council trapped in time-space, just like the lowliest

worm on a fisherman's hook. Objects in an endless sea of objects.

 

Sounds like you've been listening to speculation as that is not doctrinal.

[JLHPROF]

Sounds like you've been listening to speculation as that is not doctrinal.

 

But should be.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

And you never got to the temple, so forget what you think you know about anything "mystical"

 

.

As mentioned earlier, my gr-great Grandfather went through the

Endowment House in 1854. It is the only family tradition passed

down to my grandfather and father of such things (and I've

agreed not to even discuss the content in a forum such as this).

 

But, from what Samuel Broadhurst told his son William, a person's

getting to the temple, would appear to be an experience far divorced

from what a Meister Eckhart or a Rabindranath Tagore would tell us

about becoming one with God; being absorbed into God; Being God.

 

On the other hand, Great Grandpa's account seems to overlap just

a tad with the ancient initiation ceremonies of Demeter & Persephone

(elusive stuff, those Eleusinian Mysteries).

 

Are you sure you're not confusing via negativa with reverse image

print from September 2, 1898? (Evelyn Underhill may be of help).

 

 

UD

Or, as they say down at the ghats in Varanasi -- "tat tvam asi."

[Uncle Dale]

Sounds like you've been listening to speculation as that is not doctrinal.

 

.

As we've been saying -- if it's not in the Standard Works, the

published Messages of the 1st Presidency, or the Endowment,

it's not official LDS doctrine.

 

Too bad about that: because the funeral oration for Joseph Smith at 

Nauvoo contains some real gems about that Council and the role

played by Gazelem, the Prince of Light.

 

 

I think it is entirely safe to say that not only was Gazelem not

present in the balcony during that august assembly, but that

celestial council chamber, the Prince of Light and Council itself

were all a Mormon fantasy.

 

UD

Edited March 13, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[saemo]

Catholic cathedrals had stained windows with bible stories on them so that the illiterate masses could go to church and have someone point to the pictures and tell the stories so they could learn about God and remember the stories to teach them to their children.  No windows, no stories.  You can't read or write.  You live in the fields.  God is in the church in shining colors like heaven

 

The church has to be big and grand because he is big and grand.  It's his house after all.   The priest gets to talk to him and speaks a mysterious foreign ancient language.  Surely that is God isn't it??

 

We are a bit better educated in most circumstances today. 

You are more stuck in medieval Catholicism than Catholics are! Stained glass Cathedrals did not appear until the engineering disciplines figured out how to keep such large holes in a wall from causing the wall itself to collapse. "Winged", flying buttress, Cathedrals didn't come to be in an engineer's designs until the 12th century. AMAZINGLY, people still learned all their Bible stores before then.

 

Your medieval Catholics are so dumb and modern Mormons are so smart is nothing but bigotry.

Edited March 13, 2015 by saemo