Varying Valiantness of Plants and Animals?

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, I didn't.  If you went to the sacred grove, already disbelieving, and it felt to you just like any old regular group of trees, how would you discount that feeling as something other than confirmation bias?  I'm guessing, you wouldn't.

Though I didn't spend any time on figuring out if the feeling was just confirmation bias, I did find it very interesting that the feeling was completely unexpected and also unlooked for.  

Fair play. You are the only Mormon I have ever conversed with that went to the sacred grove without an expectation of feeling something. That’s not a suggestion of anything, it’s simply a statement of fact.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I find that fact based critical thinking seems to work quite reliably. So I have a bias towards that.

Critical thinking is just " the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

My spiritual and religious beliefs are based on critical thinking.  Atheists and agnostics don't have the corner on that market.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Fair play. You are the only Mormon I have ever conversed with that went to the sacred grove without an expectation of feeling something. That’s not a suggestion of anything, it’s simply a statement of fact.

Yes, I assumed that it would feel the same as all the other church history sites that I had visited. 

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Critical thinking is just " the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

My spiritual and religious beliefs are based on critical thinking.  Atheists and agnostics don't have the corner on that market.  

Perhaps there’s an interesting discussion to be had around sustaining religious faith in the face of/or because of, fact based critical thinking. Might be an interesting debate over time.

[Paiute]

On 5/31/2018 at 11:40 AM, pogi said:

Right.  I see it more as an actual "vision" rather than a physical visitation. 

You can read my reasoning in the "What Joseph Smith did NOT learn from the first vision" thread. 

Repectfully, I haven't read your other thread, but Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision he was told his sins were forgiven him. This would indicate an actual physical visitation by the Father and the Son, to be allowed to be in their presence.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Paiute said:

Repectfully, I haven't read your other thread, but Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision he was told his sins were forgiven him. This would indicate an actual physical visitation by the Father and the Son, to be allowed to be in their presence.

Why?  We are not physically in God’s presence when baptized and are forgiven.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Paiute said:

Repectfully, I haven't read your other thread, but Joseph Smith stated that during the First Vision he was told his sins were forgiven him. This would indicate an actual physical visitation by the Father and the Son, to be allowed to be in their presence.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

I agree with calm.  I don’t understand why a forgiveness of sins would indicate the visitation of God/s.

See Enos 1:5.  God says the exact same thing to Enos while he was in prayer, “thy sins are forgiven thee”, yet no visitation.

It is also found scattered throughout the D&C, said to different individuals, including to Joseph with no visitation on that occasion.

Edited June 2, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

What difference does it make and how could we possibly know the answer to this question?

Joseph saw God and received important Revelation. That's all that matters.

Our brain experiences something. There is no way to tell if its internal or external in such a situation, and so it becomes logically irrelevant. Intelligence was gained a church was founded that's all that is important.

We are trying to prove the objectivity of a subjective experience and that is impossible. It's the old brain in a vat problem. How do we know anything is real?

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What difference does it make and how could we possibly know the answer to this question?

Joseph saw God and received important Revelation. That's all that matters.

Our brain experiences something. There is no way to tell if its internal or external in such a situation, and so it becomes logically irrelevant. Intelligence was gained a church was founded that's all that is important.

We are trying to prove the objectivity of a subjective experience and that is impossible. It's the old brain in a vat problem. How do we know anything is real?

It doesn't make one bit of difference in terms of my faith.  I don't think anybody is trying to "prove" anything, just sharing our opinions based on how Joseph describes the experience.  I just find it interesting to consider that things are not always how we were taught growing up.  I am not saying that it absolutely was not a visitation, but I think that with an intellectually honest reading of the accounts, one would have to consider other possibilities.  It is interesting to think about, that is all.  Could it have other theological implications if it was a vision instead of a visitation?  Maybe it could.   

Edited June 2, 2018 by pogi

[Paiute]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  We are not physically in God’s presence when baptized and are forgiven.

Is that what the Fourth Article of Faith states about baptism?

[Paiute]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with calm.  I don’t understand why a forgiveness of sins would indicate the visitation of God/s.

See Enos 1:5.  God says the exact same thing to Enos while he was in prayer, “thy sins are forgiven thee”, yet no visitation.

It is also found scattered throughout the D&C, said to different individuals, including to Joseph with no visitation on that occasion.

How do you know the Lord didn't visit Enos and others?

D&C 38:7

[Paiute]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It doesn't make one bit of difference in terms of my faith.  I don't think anybody is trying to "prove" anything, just sharing our opinions based on how Joseph describes the experience.  I just find it interesting to consider that things are not always how we were taught growing up.  I am not saying that it absolutely was not a visitation, but I think that with an intellectually honest reading of the accounts, one would have to consider other possibilities.  It is interesting to think about, that is all.  Could it have other theological implications if it was a vision instead of a visitation?  Maybe it could.   

Do you know the scriptures well enough for similar appearances by the Godhead to a prophet?

How did the Brother of Jared learn the Savior had a body of spirit? The Brother of Jared didn't touch the Lord. The Lord told him the nature of his body after the Brother of Jared fell to the ground after suppossing the Lord had a body of flesh and bones.

Why couldn't the Lord had told Joseph Smith he had a physical body? He also learned He and His Father were separate and distinct beings as well as the Holy Ghost. Should that be questioned also?

Joseph Smith taught in 1843, I believe, of the nature of God as recorded in D&C 130 to correct Orson Hyde who taught that God dwelt in one's heart, an old sectarian notion from the Bible.

So where do you think Joseph Smith learned the Lord has a physical body? From the Bible? Really? The same Bible he referred to earlier that he couldn't appeal to for the truth, thus he prayed to know the truth?

In the PofGP Joseph Smith stated about the First Vision that many more things were communicated to him which he could not write about at that time. Do you think the true nature of God could of been part of that?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Paiute said:

Is that what the Fourth Article of Faith states about baptism?

Says by immersion.

Clarify please where you are going with this.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

It doesn't make one bit of difference in terms of my faith.  I don't think anybody is trying to "prove" anything, just sharing our opinions based on how Joseph describes the experience.  I just find it interesting to consider that things are not always how we were taught growing up.  I am not saying that it absolutely was not a visitation, but I think that with an intellectually honest reading of the accounts, one would have to consider other possibilities.  It is interesting to think about, that is all.  Could it have other theological implications if it was a vision instead of a visitation?  Maybe it could.   

I think that realizing that whether it was a "visitation" or a "vision" is 1- unknowable and 2- irrelevant,  is very much that "things are not always how we were taught growing up." 

It was what made it possible for me to believe that religious experience was "real" regardless of what others thought was "real" because it made a real difference in my life.

William James revolutionized theology with that insight, in my opinion. 
 

Quote

 

James criticized scientists for ignoring unseen aspects of the universe. Science studies some of reality, but not all of it:

Vague impressions of something indefinable have no place in the rationalistic system.... Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists ..., we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account of is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words.... Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it.^[9]

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

Edited June 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Paiute said:

How do you know the Lord didn't visit Enos and others?

D&C 38:7

Based on the information that we have, there is no accounting of it.  That is not some trivial detail that one would leave out of their record.  

Why?  Are you suggesting God visited these people in the flesh?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Paiute said:

Do you know the scriptures well enough for similar appearances by the Godhead to a prophet?

How did the Brother of Jared learn the Savior had a body of spirit? The Brother of Jared didn't touch the Lord. The Lord told him the nature of his body after the Brother of Jared fell to the ground after suppossing the Lord had a body of flesh and bones.

Why couldn't the Lord had told Joseph Smith he had a physical body? He also learned He and His Father were separate and distinct beings as well as the Holy Ghost. Should that be questioned also?

Joseph Smith taught in 1843, I believe, of the nature of God as recorded in D&C 130 to correct Orson Hyde who taught that God dwelt in one's heart, an old sectarian notion from the Bible.

So where do you think Joseph Smith learned the Lord has a physical body? From the Bible? Really? The same Bible he referred to earlier that he couldn't appeal to for the truth, thus he prayed to know the truth?

In the PofGP Joseph Smith stated about the First Vision that many more things were communicated to him which he could not write about at that time. Do you think the true nature of God could of been part of that?

Just so we get this out of the way, I want you to know that I agree with you but it would be best if we did not get into it here.

We just have different ways of viewing the epistemology of the world and I am afraid we will never get the words right in any discussions we  may have about "reality"

God is real, and Joseph and the prophets really saw God and God really has a tangible body.  That is my testimony.  I just do not want to get bogged down between us in stupid semantic arguments about what is "real" and what is not.  

And welcome to the board, glad to have you here! 

 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Paiute said:

Do you know the scriptures well enough for similar appearances by the Godhead to a prophet?

How did the Brother of Jared learn the Savior had a body of spirit? The Brother of Jared didn't touch the Lord. The Lord told him the nature of his body after the Brother of Jared fell to the ground after suppossing the Lord had a body of flesh and bones.

Why couldn't the Lord had told Joseph Smith he had a physical body? He also learned He and His Father were separate and distinct beings as well as the Holy Ghost. Should that be questioned also?

Joseph Smith taught in 1843, I believe, of the nature of God as recorded in D&C 130 to correct Orson Hyde who taught that God dwelt in one's heart, an old sectarian notion from the Bible.

So where do you think Joseph Smith learned the Lord has a physical body? From the Bible? Really? The same Bible he referred to earlier that he couldn't appeal to for the truth, thus he prayed to know the truth?

In the PofGP Joseph Smith stated about the First Vision that many more things were communicated to him which he could not write about at that time. Do you think the true nature of God could of been part of that?

I think you are reading way beyond what I have actually said.  

Don't you find it interesting that Orson Hyde, being as close as he was to Joseph, was teaching that God was a personage of spirit as late as 1843?  Shouldn't it have been common knowledge by that point that God had a body of flesh?  That simply does not seem to be the case.  There is not one single writing that I am aware, by any person in any journal, before 1843 teaching that God had a body of flesh.  If Joseph knew and taught that God had a body of flesh, that just seems strange that there is no account before that time.  In fact, we have record of Joseph teaching that God was a personage of spirit in 1834-1835 in Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5:2:

Quote

The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son...a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

Of course, these lectures were removed from the canon...possibly for this very reason. 

It seems clear to me that Joseph's understanding of the nature of the Godhead was progressive over time.  What is so wrong with that?  The first time that we learn that the Father had a body of flesh is in 1843...23 years after the first vision.  I have no reason to believe whatsoever that Joseph learned that God had a body of flesh in 1820.  That seems to be very troubling to you, but I'm not sure why.

Edited June 3, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think that realizing that whether it was a "visitation" or a "vision" is 1- unknowable and 2- irrelevant...

But never-the-less interesting (for me anyway) to research historical writings and try to decipher what actually happened.  I understand that I will probably never know, but I enjoy it none the less. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

But never-the-less interesting (for me anyway) to research historical writings and try to decipher what actually happened.  I understand that I will probably never know, but I enjoy it none the less. 

There is no "probably" about it imo.  We create our own worlds from matter unorganized.   

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Says by immersion.

Clarify please where you are going with this.

I think I have solved the puzzle. I think his point is that all ordinances must be performed bodily, here on earth, and that is also why we do baptisms for the dead here among the living, physically.

God essentially performed an ordinance on Joseph when He forgave Joseph's sins, THEREFORE God was bodily present or the ordinance would not follow the rule above.

That is a guess.

He wants to put us to work in solving puzzles, in a kind of Socratic method I think.

Not sure that will work here but that is my present theory.  Folks may just not get the puzzles and ignore him as being too cryptic.

[jpv]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you are reading way beyond what I have actually said.  

Don't you find it interesting that Orson Hyde, being as close as he was to Joseph, was teaching that God was a personage of spirit as late as 1843?  Shouldn't it have been common knowledge by that point that God had a body of flesh?  That simply does not seem to be the case.  There is not one single writing that I am aware, by any person in any journal, before 1843 teaching that God had a body of flesh.  If Joseph knew and taught that God had a body of flesh, that just seems strange that there is no account before that time.  In fact, we have record of Joseph teaching that God was a personage of spirit in 1834-1835 in Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5:2:

Of course, these lectures were removed from the canon...possibly for this very reason. 

It seems clear to me that Joseph's understanding of the nature of the Godhead was progressive over time.  What is so wrong with that?  The first time that we learn that the Father had a body of flesh is in 1843...23 years after the first vision.  I have no reason to believe whatsoever that Joseph learned that God had a body of flesh in 1820.  That seems to be very troubling to you, but I'm not sure why.

There is 1830s anti literature criticizing that Mormons believe God the Father has a physical body:

"the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

Truman Coe, “Mormonism,” Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary (25 August 1836): 4. Reprinted from Hudson Ohio Observer (16 August 1836):

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by jpv
Adding citation

[rodheadlee]

Sorry to get back to the OP, does this mean my boat has a soul? A couple of Teak trees gave up their lives so that we may have a home? A dinosaur probably gave its life to that we might have a home. Perhaps one of you chemist can tell me what grp is made out of? All of our boats are female,  we are pretty sure they have a spirit.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, jpv said:

There is 1830s anti literature criticizing that Mormons believe God the Father has a physical body:

"the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

Truman Coe, “Mormonism,” Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary (25 August 1836): 4. Reprinted from Hudson Ohio Observer (16 August 1836):

 

That is interesting.  The Lectures on Faith were delivered in late 1834 and accepted into the D&C on Aug 17, 1835.  Almost exactly one year later, this man writes that the Mormons believe in a corporeal God.  Joseph taught that God had a body on 5 January 1841, stating:

Quote

That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.

This teaching becomes canonized in 1843.  Based on this evidence, I would guess that Joseph learned that God had a corporeal body between August 1834 and August 1835...except, there is one mystery, one piece of the puzzle that doesn't quite fit - on 2 Feb 1833 Joseph changed John 4:24 so that it no longer said that God was a spirit.  

This suggests that perhaps Joseph understood that God was not a spirit person at least 2 years before the Lectures on Faith were canonized.  But that just doesn't make any sense!  I can't figure it out!  

The only possible explanations that I can think of is this - Joseph didn't fully recognize that God had a body of flesh after translating JST John 4:24.  After all, the alteration doesn't specify that God has a body of flesh, it simply was changed to say that "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit", instead of saying, "God is a spirit".  After all, Joseph clearly still believed that God was a personage of spirit as late as 1835. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by pogi

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The only possible explanations that I can think of is this - Joseph didn't fully recognize that God had a body of flesh after translating JST John 4:24.  After all, the alteration doesn't specify that God has a body of flesh, it simply was changed to say that "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit", instead of saying, "God is a spirit".  After all, Joseph clearly still believed that God was a personage of spirit as late as 1835. 

Perfect fits are hard to come by.

[speculation] Could there be more than one possible meaning to the word "God"?   This might explain some of the seeming inconsistencies.

My understanding is that the Book of Judges is "the Book of the Elohim" in Hebrew, giving a precedent for the word we translate as "God" having meanings which we aren't accustomed to.  My understanding is also that "Elohim" is a plural word, masculine plural to be exact, but in Hebrew the masculine plural is used for a group that includes both males and females, so theoretically an Elohim could be a group consisting of both males and females.  Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway the principle of eternal progression implies that there may be several stages in between being a faithful mortal on an Earth, and being Creator of a universe.   For instance, there might be intermediate stages wherein a person (or group) is in effect the Elohim of a planet, then perhaps the perhaps the Elohim of a galaxy, then perhaps the Elohim of a supercluster of galaxies, before moving all the way up to Elohim of a universe.   I'm NOT saying this is necessarily how it works - this is just a "for instance, it might be something like this." 

So maybe Brigham wasn't totally off base with his Adam-God theory, Adam and Eve perhaps being the Elohim of this planet, but not necessarily the Elohim of the whole universe - that being still a stage or two down the road.

As to what kinds of bodies exalted beings have at these various stages, my guess is that there's a progression there as well, and could be that it's more complicated than an either/or between "has a body" and "is a spirit". 

Also, it might be possible that the evolution in Joseph Smith's teachings which we see is actually an evolution of his thinking on what would be the most enlightening and uplifting teaching on the subject of the nature of God at this time, as opposed to trying to cover all aspects of a possibly very complicated subject completely.  [/speculation]

Edited June 4, 2018 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 

That is interesting.  The Lectures on Faith were delivered in late 1834 and accepted into the D&C on Aug 17, 1835.  Almost exactly one year later, this man writes that the Mormons believe in a corporeal God.  Joseph taught that God had a body on 5 January 1841, stating:

This teaching becomes canonized in 1843.  Based on this evidence, I would guess that Joseph learned that God had a corporeal body between August 1834 and August 1835...except, there is one mystery, one piece of the puzzle that doesn't quite fit - on 2 Feb 1833 Joseph changed John 4:24 so that it no longer said that God was a spirit.  

This suggests that perhaps Joseph understood that God was not a spirit person at least 2 years before the Lectures on Faith were canonized.  But that just doesn't make any sense!  I can't figure it out!  

The only possible explanations that I can think of is this - Joseph didn't fully recognize that God had a body of flesh after translating JST John 4:24.  After all, the alteration doesn't specify that God has a body of flesh, it simply was changed to say that "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit", instead of saying, "God is a spirit".  After all, Joseph clearly still believed that God was a personage of spirit as late as 1835. 

Maybe he knew but did not want to fully reveal it at that time?