All things created spiritually before naturally

[Josh Khinder]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Nothing in that verse says the unity is ontological. It could just as easily be read nominalistically. Indeed historically that's how it's typically been read. Even Pratt's more Stoic view of the ousia really isn't an ontological unity ala the Trinity but a kind of shared material fluid. Thus it's a common physical substance but not an ontological unity.

Now personally I think there is some kind of ontological unity - although I'd favor the Nothing of say Duns Scotus for various reasons. (Mainly dealing with Levinas' view of how God is absolutely other but so too are other minds and thus our own ontological ground) However there's really no textual reason to take that interpretation.

I'd not you're misusing hypostasis when you say One God. The traditional formulation, which shifted the normal Roman sense of the terms somewhat, is that there's one ousia but three hypostasis. The hypostasis is thus not shared.

My suggestion would be that whenever you read a passage don't assume the way you read it is correct. Rather consider the range of ways that passage could be read. Typically, especially with difficult passages, the text is somewhat vague and thus open to many competing readings.

Trinity in the Easton Bible dictionary is quite clear when it comes to hypostasis 😄

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Trinity in the Easton Bible dictionary is quite clear when it comes to hypostasis 

However the issue you raised was whether it was in D&C 20:28. The issue isn't what it means in a particular Bible Dictionary explaining the historic development of Trinitarian doctrine. You do, I hope, understand why the later is irrelevant for the former.

Edited June 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Trinity in the Easton Bible dictionary is quite clear when it comes to hypostasis 😄

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I would essentially agree with these 4 points from an LDS perspective on the nature of God with some clarifications. LDS do believe there are three separate persons or beings in the Godhead.

As for being one "God" I take a view derived from the Hebrew scriptures. There is one Elohim. The problem with the English is that this often gets translated as God. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. Elim is the plural of El. I read Elohim as the family of immovable force, so it does have a singular aspect. There is one house of God. There is one family, and He is our house or family. I am YHWH your Elohim becomes I am the life/word of your house/family of immovable force. The way the English translations translate the word confuses this ontological nature. The Creeds' introduction of homoousios only serves to further muddy the waters. Yeshua is YHWH Elohim with the Father, and is fully one with Him in these names and titles, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High El, which is a title of the Father. Luke calls Him the son of the Highest. So, we began to see the doctrine of the Trinity fall apart a little already. Nor do I believe the creeds get the title of the Son correct, but confuse Him with the Father. The creeds use the Father in place of El Shaddai, which I believe is a title of Yeshua, and does not mean the Almighty God, which is El Gibbor. El is not really a word pertaining to a singular being but means more like "the power." When God says there is no other El besides me, He is saying there is no other power besides Him - not that there is no other being inside the house of God. Any El or power within this house comes from Him. He shares this power with the Son, but this did not include His omnipotence. 

Some of the main problems with the doctrines of the trinity stem from the application of Greek philosophy and concepts to try to explain the nature of God set forth in the scriptures in Semitic speech and concepts. We end up with a confused mishmash of the nature of God. This has taken me years to untangle, but it is very clear once you divest yourself of Greek way of looking at gods and divinity.  Without all that baggage, the Hebrew scriptures finally make sense, and there is no need to unscripturally divest the Son from His begotten nature by making Him begotten before all ages/worlds in order to maintain the idea of "one God." 

[Josh Khinder]

Quote

 

 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for pointing this out. I would essentially agree with these 4 points from an LDS perspective on the nature of God with some clarifications. LDS do believe there are three separate persons or beings in the Godhead.

As for being one "God" I take a view derived from the Hebrew scriptures. There is one Elohim. The problem with the English is that this often gets translated as God. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. Elim is the plural of El. I read Elohim as the family of immovable force, so it does have a singular aspect. There is one house of God. There is one family, and He is our house or family. I am YHWH your Elohim becomes I am the life/word of your house/family of immovable force. The way the English translations translate the word confuses this ontological nature. The Creeds' introduction of homoousios only serves to further muddy the waters. Yeshua is YHWH Elohim with the Father, and is fully one with Him in these names and titles, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High El, which is a title of the Father. Luke calls Him the son of the Highest. So, we began to see the doctrine of the Trinity fall apart a little already. Nor do I believe the creeds get the title of the Son correct, but confuse Him with the Father. The creeds use the Father in place of El Shaddai, which I believe is a title of Yeshua, and does not mean the Almighty God, which is El Gibbor. El is not really a word pertaining to a singular being but means more like "the power." When God says there is no other El besides me, He is saying there is no other power besides Him - not that there is no other being inside the house of God. Any El or power within this house comes from Him. He shares this power with the Son, but this did not include His omnipotence. 

Some of the main problems with the doctrines of the trinity stem from the application of Greek philosophy and concepts to try to explain the nature of God set forth in the scriptures in Semitic speech and concepts. We end up with a confused mishmash of the nature of God. This has taken me years to untangle, but it is very clear once you divest yourself of Greek way of looking at gods and divinity.  Without all that baggage, the Hebrew scriptures finally make sense, and there is no need to unscripturally divest the Son from His begotten nature by making Him begotten before all ages/worlds in order to maintain the idea of "one God." 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for pointing this out. I would essentially agree with these 4 points from an LDS perspective on the nature of God with some clarifications. LDS do believe there are three separate persons or beings in the Godhead.

As for being one "God" I take a view derived from the Hebrew scriptures. There is one Elohim. The problem with the English is that this often gets translated as God. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. Elim is the plural of El. I read Elohim as the family of immovable force, so it does have a singular aspect. There is one house of God. There is one family, and He is our house or family. I am YHWH your Elohim becomes I am the life/word of your house/family of immovable force. The way the English translations translate the word confuses this ontological nature. The Creeds' introduction of homoousios only serves to further muddy the waters. Yeshua is YHWH Elohim with the Father, and is fully one with Him in these names and titles, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High El, which is a title of the Father. Luke calls Him the son of the Highest. So, we began to see the doctrine of the Trinity fall apart a little already. Nor do I believe the creeds get the title of the Son correct, but confuse Him with the Father. The creeds use the Father in place of El Shaddai, which I believe is a title of Yeshua, and does not mean the Almighty God, which is El Gibbor. El is not really a word pertaining to a singular being but means more like "the power." When God says there is no other El besides me, He is saying there is no other power besides Him - not that there is no other being inside the house of God. Any El or power within this house comes from Him. He shares this power with the Son, but this did not include His omnipotence. 

Some of the main problems with the doctrines of the trinity stem from the application of Greek philosophy and concepts to try to explain the nature of God set forth in the scriptures in Semitic speech and concepts. We end up with a confused mishmash of the nature of God. This has taken me years to untangle, but it is very clear once you divest yourself of Greek way of looking at gods and divinity.  Without all that baggage, the Hebrew scriptures finally make sense, and there is no need to unscripturally divest the Son from His begotten nature by making Him begotten before all ages/worlds in order to maintain the idea of "one God." 

https://i.imgur.com/bC6UHyX.jpg

[ztop]

"For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth." (Moses 3: 5)"

I know this is an old discussion but wanted to offer some insight into spiritual creation. Note the Mormon church doesn't push a particular doctrine. They allow members to do their research and draw their own conclusions. If you want some in depth guidance on spirit read the Seventies Course on Theology by B. H. Roberts. It was brilliant!
 

Key points-- I consider this God science. It's advanced concepts of human nature.

Spirit and intelligence being the core matter of our composition. "all things are matter. Spirit is just more refined matter." J Smith-- google it.

Spirit and intelligence to a large degree is interchangeable. My observation is spirit is a type of matter that has intelligence or consciousness but intelligence is more than just consciousness.

Spirit is used differently depending on the circumstances. You have spirit matter, spirt beings like the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. 

Humans are created spiritually and have bodies of spirit. Just like the Holy Ghost. That spirit matter is drastically different than physical matter. Physical matter is what sensory perception senses. But one has to realize most of our earthly experience is not sensory perceived. There are many things out of the range and scope of eyesight. An idea or desire is prime examples. A desire is the human force that moves us from our present experience to our desired experience. It powers reality change. It moves physical matter to create a new experience and reality. A car's creation is a prime example. 

To create a car one must consider all the technology or intelligence behind the car's creation. Where does technology come from? Where on earth does one find technology? Give one instance where eyesight finds technology. Truth is the same. Truth is technology and these technological truths are what alter and advance human reality.  Without them there is no human advancement. Truths are beyond the range and scope of eyesight. Sensory perception isn't intelligence per se but data collection to assist intelligence in perceiving a dimension far different from itself. 

One must note that without truths and technology or intelligence content-- one is restricted to the level of intelligence they hold. Some have more freedom simply because they hold to truths and those truths offer freedom. Best example-- ask yourself why man is stranded on earth and limited in his ability to leave earth. It's simply because of the unknowns or the lack of how tos.

One has to ask themselves what is love, faith, desire, a thought and consciousness? Don't they have to have existence? Don't they have to be real and have material base? If so, why is eyesight incapable of seeing or detecting them? My observation is intelligence has activities and those activities are just as real as any physical visible thing. Just because you can't see invisible realities doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lectures on Faith suggests that God works by faith and the spirit. Well how is that possible if those are not real and hold no substance or mass. How can consciousness detect them yet eyesight can't? And if they aren't real how can consciousness detect them?

Joseph Smith gives some clues. Spirit is matter-- just more refined. He also stated that spirit is in all things and through all things. That means that wherever there is space there is spirit. It is as plentiful and real as atoms, sub atomic particles, and whatever is beyond.

Spirit and intelligence are used interchangeably because spirit has intelligence. It gives light and if you put 2 +2 together intelligence has consciousness and the ability to perceive itself and all things related to it.

How does God operate by spirit? because it is in and through all things and holds consciousness and intelligence and other intelligence type activities. Spirit is unique and distinct and its activities are the same.

How do we know that Joseph Smith is right? Ask yourself. Can non intelligent matter create intelligence? How is that even possible? That's comparable to making something out of nothing right? If you answer no--un intelligent things can create intelligence, then you understand the eternal nature of intelligence or spirit matter. If it can't be created by a non intelligent thing-- therefore the most reasonable conclusion is IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED! It has to be eternal and forever without beginning.

So God can be all knowing, all powerful, all present via spirit. It's kind of like God's internet but far more intelligent and omnipresent. Since it's in all things and has consciousness and intelligence-- it perceives all things.

So if this intelligent matter is in and through all things God can speak and spirit will obey! And God can command the sea to part or call for manna to fall from the sky like rain.
So since we are spirit beings we also have a connection to spirit-- but my observation is to tune in to it certain conditions must be met.
A friend suggested that intelligence is a stream of consciousness or intelligence but since it is in and through all things it must be more like a field or ocean of consciousness or intelligence which we are apart of. 

Whatever eyesight can't detect-- must hold different qualities and traits than what sensory perception was designed to detect. And that's why we see a visible rendition of a car but nothing about it's actual intelligence or spirit creation.  Before a car is physically created think of all the intelligence and technology that went into its creation. It is massive and spans over centuries. But in the end man takes those spirit conceptions and turns that thinking into a visible physical creation. A creation that could never exist without intelligence.

All things created by man use the same creation process. Similar to God's creation of the earth and the heavens but on a much smaller scale. We think things into existence while God speaks and the element obey. And human creations are things that can't be found anywhere in the physical world. Man takes sand and creates a computer chip--- show me a computer chip in nature! These are things mother nature could never duplicate. Think of all the technology mother nature would have to duplicate to simply make a car. There is no way that is possible for mother earth to manufacture all the elements that goes into a car and even if there was it only proves the existence and power of intelligence.

Our power is like God's power and we work through the same spirit and intelligence that God does only God speaks and the elements listen. We have to think things into existence. So we create things spiritually then materially.

Our problem is if this power goes undeveloped and harnessed and we were in an immortal setting---the only outcome would be ETERNAL MISERY. Eternal evil creates eternal misery and you can see man's potential for eternal evil everywhere. How to you fight an eternal war? Why would you want that? So if you think in immortal terms one would recognize that for God to maintain heaven-- its citizens must conform to the highest values and standards and harness their creative power for good not evil.

[teddyaware]

On 6/11/2018 at 2:02 AM, Josh Khinder said:

1 Cor. 15:

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.    The Bible is clear man was made flesh and blood first and believers after will, get resurrected celestial body at resurrection. Very clear only Jesus came from heaven and not any man

A revelation from God was given to the prophet Joseph Smith that provides additional light and knowledge that extends beyond Paul’s more rudimentary explanation of man’s divine origin found in 1 Cor 15...

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

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— 

First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work— (D&C 29)

 

[Meadowchik]

On 6/11/2018 at 3:31 PM, snowflake said:

 

I'm often confused why the LDS don't believe in science. The big bang clearly supports ex-nihilo. 

How is that? The singularity was not nothing.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How is that? The singularity was not nothing.

This is from a year and a half ago, so he may not respond....though he is visiting. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:23 PM, ztop said:

Humans are created spiritually and have bodies of spirit. Just like the Holy Ghost. That spirit matter is drastically different than physical matter. Physical matter is what sensory perception senses. But one has to realize most of our earthly experience is not sensory perceived. There are many things out of the range and scope of eyesight. An idea or desire is prime examples. A desire is the human force that moves us from our present experience to our desired experience. It powers reality change. It moves physical matter to create a new experience and reality. A car's creation is a prime example. 

I agree with many of your conclusions but I am confused by others.   This is one that I don't understand - why do you suggest that only physical matter is what sensory perception senses?  My spiritual experiences are definitely sensory experiences.  You seem to limit sensory experiences throughout your post to "eyesight".  But even then, the scriptures clearly describe people seeing spiritual beings (like Nephi seeing the spirit, or the Bro of Jared seeing the pre-mortal hand of Christ.)  It seems clear to me that spiritual matter is also perceived through our senses.  I also think it is clear that spirit beings equally have sensory perception.  An "idea" or "desire" are also sensory experiences.  Desire for food, sexual desire, etc. are all sensory and physiological experiences, as are ideas.  We don't need to see them with our eyes for them to be sensory experiences. 

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with many of your conclusions but I am confused by others.   This is one that I don't understand - why do you suggest that only physical matter is what sensory perception senses?  My spiritual experiences are definitely sensory experiences.  You seem to limit sensory experiences throughout your post to "eyesight".  But even then, the scriptures clearly describe people seeing spiritual beings (like Nephi seeing the spirit, or the Bro of Jared seeing the pre-mortal hand of Christ.)  It seems clear to me that spiritual matter is also perceived through our senses.  I also think it is clear that spirit beings equally have sensory perception.  An "idea" or "desire" are also sensory experiences.  Desire for food, sexual desire, etc. are all sensory and physiological experiences, as are ideas.  We don't need to see them with our eyes for them to be sensory experiences. 

“All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies.” Teachings, pg 355

Communication via the Holy Ghost is to our spirit body. Because of our linkage between our bodies, the perceptions of the spirit body can be discerned by our physical body. However, the path of the spiritual sensation to a physical one does not seem unique from person to person or even time to time. Thus, how one time I “feel” the Spirit may be different from another person from the same event or even different than yesterday from a similar event. I suspect that applies to all spiritual sensations. For example, I might “see” a spirit person in a room and another not. That spiritual perception gets transmitted to my brain in a way that my mind associates with physical sight, but no optical cones in my eye were stimulated.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with many of your conclusions but I am confused by others.   This is one that I don't understand - why do you suggest that only physical matter is what sensory perception senses?  My spiritual experiences are definitely sensory experiences.  You seem to limit sensory experiences throughout your post to "eyesight".  But even then, the scriptures clearly describe people seeing spiritual beings (like Nephi seeing the spirit, or the Bro of Jared seeing the pre-mortal hand of Christ.)  It seems clear to me that spiritual matter is also perceived through our senses.  I also think it is clear that spirit beings equally have sensory perception.  An "idea" or "desire" are also sensory experiences.  Desire for food, sexual desire, etc. are all sensory and physiological experiences, as are ideas.  We don't need to see them with our eyes for them to be sensory experiences. 

All these are created by our brains/intelligence

All we can know is. There is no debate.

Where else could it" be"/exist? Without intelligence there is no "existence." That we could know.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with many of your conclusions but I am confused by others.   This is one that I don't understand - why do you suggest that only physical matter is what sensory perception senses?  My spiritual experiences are definitely sensory experiences.  You seem to limit sensory experiences throughout your post to "eyesight".  But even then, the scriptures clearly describe people seeing spiritual beings (like Nephi seeing the spirit, or the Bro of Jared seeing the pre-mortal hand of Christ.)  It seems clear to me that spiritual matter is also perceived through our senses.  I also think it is clear that spirit beings equally have sensory perception.  An "idea" or "desire" are also sensory experiences.  Desire for food, sexual desire, etc. are all sensory and physiological experiences, as are ideas.  We don't need to see them with our eyes for them to be sensory experiences. 

But then there are reports of people claiming that they saw things (eg Moroni showing the plates to the 3 witnesses) with their "spiritual eyes". Are the spiritual eyes the same as our physical eyes? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by JAHS

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Nofear said:

“All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies.” Teachings, pg 355

Communication via the Holy Ghost is to our spirit body. Because of our linkage between our bodies, the perceptions of the spirit body can be discerned by our physical body. However, the path of the spiritual sensation to a physical one does not seem unique from person to person or even time to time. Thus, how one time I “feel” the Spirit may be different from another person from the same event or even different than yesterday from a similar event. I suspect that applies to all spiritual sensations. For example, I might “see” a spirit person in a room and another not. That spiritual perception gets transmitted to my brain in a way that my mind associates with physical sight, but no optical cones in my eye were stimulated.

I would posit that all spiritual experience is perceived in our physical brains. This has been demonstrated through MRI studies of religious/spiritual experiences. All perception, spiritual or not, and consciousness happens in the brain.  Whether or not your optic nerve was stimulated in a spiritual sighting is a matter of speculation.  Another possible conclusion that we could draw from two people being in the same room where only one person sees a spirit, is that it could potentially indicate that spiritual beings have the ability to reveal themselves to some (triggering their optic nerve) but not the other.   Either way, this spirit being is sensed in the physical brain.  I don't think it matters whether or not the person sees it with their physical eyes, and transmits it to the brain via their optic nerve -  the only thing that matters to make my point is that they are seen with our physical brain (as you acknowledge). 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But then there are reports of people claiming that they saw things (eg Moroni showing the plates to the 3 witnesses) with their "spiritual eyes". Are the spiritual eyes the same as our physical eyes? 

Not necessarily with our physical eyes (but maybe in some cases), but definitely with our physical brains.  Our spiritual perceptions - dreams, visions, spiritual experiences, etc. are perceived in our physical brains and create memories in our physical hardware that can fade over time as is natural with our brains. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by pogi

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not necessarily with our physical eyes (but maybe in some cases), but definitely with our physical brains.  Our spiritual perceptions - dreams, visions, spiritual experiences, etc. are perceived in our physical brains and create memories in our physical hardware that can fade over time as is natural with our brains. 

Agreed. If it's something a person can remember and recall after it happens then the experience was stored in our physical brains.  I suppose it is also stored and remembered  in our spiritual brains between death and resurrection?
 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Agreed. If it's something a person can remember and recall after it happens then the experience was stored in our physical brains.  I suppose it is also stored and remembered  in our spiritual brains between death and resurrection?
 

However, we can’t measure our spiritual bodies, so given the exchange between the two we are assuming, what is there to prevent the spiritual brain being the one that stores memories and experiences perceptions the physical brain doesn’t’ and we are just unable to distinguish what is stored where and when it is being accessed to release memories and perceptions instead of our physical brain?

The physical brain might just act as the release mechanism and not the storage of memories, etc  

Brain studies may be activating without being able to measure the input of the spiritual brain and that activation is actually why memories are released, not the activation of the physical brain. There is no way we currently have to guarantee we are only measuring the results of physical effects. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Calm

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

Agreed. If it's something a person can remember and recall after it happens then the experience was stored in our physical brains.  I suppose it is also stored and remembered  in our spiritual brains between death and resurrection?

Well, the scriptures and the NDE's will life review events suggest that the memories are definitely not just stored in the physical brain. Indeed, it seems that our spirit memory is vastly superior to and more complete than our physical (and probably includes pre-mortal memories, though when access to that would be recovered is not clear). How that data transfer occurs is, to me, one of those very interesting physics questions to which we just don't have enough information yet to offer even plausible speculations. Oh, that it were otherwise.

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Well, the scriptures and the NDE's will life review events suggest that the memories are definitely not just stored in the physical brain. Indeed, it seems that our spirit memory is vastly superior to and more complete than our physical (and probably includes pre-mortal memories, though when access to that would be recovered is not clear). How that data transfer occurs is, to me, one of those very interesting physics questions to which we just don't have enough information yet to offer even plausible speculations. Oh, that it were otherwise.

Agreed. 
According to Elder Boyd K. Packer:
"Resurrection is our redemption from temporal death, from the grave. There is also a redemption from the spiritual death and an exaltation for those who are worthy to receive it. We shall receive celestial, terrestrial, or telestial bodies in the resurrection. Those who inherit the celestial glory shall inherit bodies like unto the Father, bodies which have a glory akin to the glory of the sun. Our memory of premortal life will be restored in perfect clarity. Those who have been endowed, sealed, and have kept their covenants will assemble with their families. (Mine Errand from the Lord, by Boyd K. Packer)

Elder Neil A.Maxwell said:
“The veil of forgetfulness of the first estate apparently will not be suddenly, automatically, and totally removed at the time of our temporal death. This veil, a condition of our entire second estate, is associated with and is part of our time of mortal trial, testing, proving, and overcoming by faith—and thus will continue in some key respects into the spirit world. (The Promise of Discipleship [2001], 119, 122)

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Well, the scriptures and the NDE's will life review events suggest that the memories are definitely not just stored in the physical brain. Indeed, it seems that our spirit memory is vastly superior to and more complete than our physical (and probably includes pre-mortal memories, though when access to that would be recovered is not clear). How that data transfer occurs is, to me, one of those very interesting physics questions to which we just don't have enough information yet to offer even plausible speculations. Oh, that it were otherwise.

I think the spirit and the body operate essentially the same way, only at different levels of material fineness or pureness, and sometimes in tandem and sometimes not. They interact with things and beings that are also existing and operating at various levels of fineness or pureness.

[darkrats]

Even if it could be proven, somehow, that the universe sprang (is that a word?) into existence out of nothing, you would still have to explain how the laws of physics came into existence.
Without the laws of physics already, somehow, being there, the big bang could not have happened, there could be no singularity, no black hole, no cosmic strings popping in and out of existence in a total vacumn.
There has to be a law giver to explain the existence of all of the physical and mathematical laws that govern every aspect of our universe, including how the universe came into being out of "nothing".
 

[Calm]

The "laws" of matter are simply descriptions of how things act.  They are not laws in the sense of legal laws.  Someone has studied how things move, combine, interreact, etc and discovered relationships that can be then described mathematically.

Therefore the " laws" would not have to be in existence prior to the appearance of matter/energy or space/time.  They would be determined by the characteristics of the Big Bang, etc.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, darkrats said:

Even if it could be proven, somehow, that the universe sprang (is that a word?) into existence out of nothing, you would still have to explain how the laws of physics came into existence.
Without the laws of physics already, somehow, being there, the big bang could not have happened, there could be no singularity, no black hole, no cosmic strings popping in and out of existence in a total vacumn.
There has to be a law giver to explain the existence of all of the physical and mathematical laws that govern every aspect of our universe, including how the universe came into being out of "nothing".
 

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What is glaringly obvious when you see the whole iceberg is that even if there was a big bang, whatever sprang or exploded from that big bang was already there before that big bang.  So it's not that it never existed before.  It's just that it wasn't like how it was after it exploded, or how it is now.  The universe before it exploded was just different back then than it is now.  So it still doesn't explain where everything came from.  It only explains what caused it to move around, from what was there or what there was before the big bang.  If there ever was a big bang.

The way I see it, if I were somehow able to stay in one spot forever, I would always be able to see things both going further away from me and coming closer to me.  And still there would be other things beyond what I was able to see from wherever I was.

Most scientists these days who study such things seem to think there is nothing beyond what they can see.  that if they can't see it, then it isn't out there.  A reasonable conclusion, but wrong if there actually are other things out there which they simply can't see.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

that if they can't see it, then it isn't out there

And yet dark matter...

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

that if they can't see it, then it isn't out there

And yet dark matter...

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter."
Joseph Smith