Did Jesus visit all the spirit worlds in three days?

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If Jesus ain't going to every world that's been created and living their as the savior then dying and coming back to life to tell them they can live again, then what the hell else is he doing?  God's listening to the prayers, I thought.  He can't be doing that.  He ain't no Holy Ghost messing with people's inside feelings and stuff.  He must be doing something.  He gotsta go live his 30 some odd years on each planet, teach them things about how they should love strangers and hate family, and how he and God don't know most of them and never will and all of that.  He's got some goodish news to spread to some of each world's inhabitants and to the rest, well he never knew them anyway.  

You can believe that Christ lived multiple lives on multiple worlds from the beginning of time until the end of it, if you want. Just because some feel that he did it only once on this earth, and all the rest get Christ by the proxy of this one, isn't important. Ultimately, it isn't important HOW it is done, just that it is DONE.

As @teddyaware said: "I believe the answer is likely more arcane and profound than most would imagine." Amen, and I would never presume to say that I understand it beyond mortal means. 

But the scripture that @The Nehor quoted suggests that this world might very well be the only one where it was possible for Christ to fulfill His mission by being put to death:

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren. (Moses 7:36)

Because how many times must Christ experience the agony of the Atonement, and how many times must He experience death itself and be resurrected, in order to meet the demands of both justice and mercy for all of Father's children?

It's perfectly reasonable for us to assume that He needed to do it only once, and just as messengers (prophets, apostles, and missionaries) are sent out to tell those who did not see Christ's Atonement, death and resurrection for themselves, those who dwell on other worlds would hear it in the same way. It need not happen on their worlds for it to be efficacious on all worlds.

There's an alternative, of course, which posits that each world has its own Christ, and each world's Christ atones only for the sins of the people of that world. If you would prefer that alternative, who's there to gainsay it? Nobody! The scriptures are silent on what happens on other worlds, except to say that there are other worlds, as found in the scripture that was quoted above from Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

 

 

 

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There's an alternative, of course, which posits that each world has its own Christ, and each world's Christ atones only for the sins of the people of that world. If you would prefer that alternative, who's there to gainsay it? Nobody!

Brigham Young said some things on a few occasions that support this idea:

Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.
Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round. (Brigham Young, "For This Is Life Eternal," in Eldon Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 2:230)

"President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, Church Historical Department; 12 May 1867. ")

"All worlds have their God, their Savior, their sin, their priesthood, and can choose which they like, but beginning man rejected the priesthood by assuming to be a law unto himself—all other things abide this law." Minutes of Meetings Held in Provo City; Film/979.2/Z99/v. 2, BYU Microfilm Room; Sunday, 2 p.m. 3 October 1869.

It sounds like he is saying that every world has had their own Savior. So I think even the earliest church leaders were not so certain about this issue but learned more about it as time went on.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

.When he writes "We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking is saying that the "cause" couldn't have existed in the universe itself, because for the cause to exist in the universe, it would have needed to cause itself.  Or, in other words, for the Creator to have existed in the creation, he would have needed to create himself! This is absurd, of course, and it should be obvious that the Creator would have had to pre-exist this Universe and be outside it -- and its time -- in order to create it!  

1.  You persistently mix metaphors- this is the reason you do not understand religion in general.  These are stories which are designed to help us find our way and purpose in life and to inspire us.  Historical or scientific accuracy is irrelevant to religion- religion is poetry.  Hawking is clearly one of the most brilliant PHYSICISTS to have ever lived, but he is not much of a poet.  But if you could comprehend that all atheists do NOT comprehend that religion is poetry, not science.   Hawking had his own religion not based on God- clearly he had meaning in his life brought to his life by "The UNKNOWN' - in his case the unknown was physics, and solving its problems gave him meaning- while religionists seek the unknown about meaning of life, not how it goes.

Galileo was a pretty smart dude scientifically but he had it figured out- something I would suggest you think about-  He said "The scriptures teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

2.  Hawking's philosophy here is absurd and contradictory  IF you have stated it correctly

First he denies causality completely by saying he has found something without a cause.  Incidentally THAT was the entire premise behind Aquinas and the boys PROOF for God- the uncaused cause- the FIRST CAUSE, the unmoved mover etc.

But of course Hawking was just as wrong about this as Aquinas but at least Aquinas at least did not contradict himself

Here Hawking says- according to you- and I would like to see the quote- " Hawking is saying that the "cause" couldn't have existed in the universe itself, because for the cause to exist in the universe, it would have needed to cause itself. "

But if it could NOT cause itself - the implication here- then how does it exist?   Either you have an eternal chain of causes or not.  If you are postulating it caused itself, it still had a cause.

But all of that is irrelevant because it's poetry.-  OR CAN BE TAKEN THAT WAY CONSISTENTLY.

That is how you mix metaphors.  You continually think that scripture is a science text.   You appear to be unable to see it otherwise.  You do not understand different paradigms for different purposes, or "language games" or category errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake#:~:text=A category mistake%2C or category,could not possibly have that

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You can believe that Christ lived multiple lives on multiple worlds from the beginning of time until the end of it, if you want. Just because some feel that he did it only once on this earth, and all the rest get Christ by the proxy of this one, isn't important. Ultimately, it isn't important HOW it is done, just that it is DONE.

As @teddyaware said: "I believe the answer is likely more arcane and profound than most would imagine." Amen, and I would never presume to say that I understand it beyond mortal means. 

But the scripture that @The Nehor quoted suggests that this world might very well be the only one where it was possible for Christ to fulfill His mission by being put to death:

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren. (Moses 7:36)

Because how many times must Christ experience the agony of the Atonement, and how many times must He experience death itself and be resurrected, in order to meet the demands of both justice and mercy for all of Father's children?

It's perfectly reasonable for us to assume that He needed to do it only once, and just as messengers (prophets, apostles, and missionaries) are sent out to tell those who did not see Christ's Atonement, death and resurrection for themselves, those who dwell on other worlds would hear it in the same way. It need not happen on their worlds for it to be efficacious on all worlds.

There's an alternative, of course, which posits that each world has its own Christ, and each world's Christ atones only for the sins of the people of that world. If you would prefer that alternative, who's there to gainsay it? Nobody! The scriptures are silent on what happens on other worlds, except to say that there are other worlds, as found in the scripture that was quoted above from Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

 

 

 

Since the atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal in power, reach and scope, it makes no logical sense at all that Christ would have to suffer infinitely and eternally more than once. If the atoning sacrifice of Christ was something less than infinite and eternal in power, reach and scope, then more than one sacrifice would be necessary.

[Nofear]

Let's imagine a prophet's message on another world:
 

Quote

At some future time, far, far into the future; on a planet that doesn't even exist yet ("planet" you say? don't worry about that yet, don't get distracted); there will be a person, the Son of God, that will be the Savior of all of God's creations and the first to be resurrected. In the meantime, we'll die and remain in our spirit body until such time as that world is created and the Savior performs the Atonement and is resurrected. Awesome right! Just plan on being reaaaaalllly, reaaalllly, patient. Have faith!

Or, perhaps another prophet far into a future creation, in a very remote place.

Quote

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away on a distant planet ("planet", "galaxy" you say? don't worry about that yet, don't get distracted), there was a person, the Son of God, among the many bazillion quadrillions of people ... he died for our sins, oh, a reeeeeaaaalllly, reeeeaaaalllly long time ago (like a billion planets or so ago, "planets"? what's that... don't get distracted) so that if we repent we can be forgiven of our sins. Awesome right! God knew you before you were born. Heck, he knew you before you were even organized into a spirit body!

 

I know that I am in quite the minority, including among latter-day saint prophets. Nonetheless, I confess I am quite ok with there being one Savior per one world inhabited by the sons of an Adam. It does no violence whatsoever to my understanding/interpretation of the Gospel.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Since the atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal in power, reach and scope, it makes no logical sense at all that Christ would have to suffer infinitely and eternally more than once. If the atoning sacrifice of Christ was something less than infinite and eternal in power, reach and scope, then more than one sacrifice would be necessary.

Yep, that's my take as well.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Brigham Young said some things on a few occasions that support this idea:

Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.
Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round. (Brigham Young, "For This Is Life Eternal," in Eldon Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 2:230)

"President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, Church Historical Department; 12 May 1867. ")

"All worlds have their God, their Savior, their sin, their priesthood, and can choose which they like, but beginning man rejected the priesthood by assuming to be a law unto himself—all other things abide this law." Minutes of Meetings Held in Provo City; Film/979.2/Z99/v. 2, BYU Microfilm Room; Sunday, 2 p.m. 3 October 1869.

It sounds like he is saying that every world has had their own Savior. So I think even the earliest church leaders were not so certain about this issue but learned more about it as time went on.

I respect Brother Brigham's opinion, and of course he could be right, but I tend to think that is just what it is: opinion. I'm pretty sure that the Church has not canonized any such doctrine. Especially since we have no need to know. It's a doctrine which has no value to us in our mortal situation.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Let's imagine a prophet's message on another world:
 

Or, perhaps another prophet far into a future creation, in a very remote place.

 

I know that I am in quite the minority, including among latter-day saint prophets. Nonetheless, I confess I am quite ok with there being one Savior per one world inhabited by the sons of an Adam. It does no violence whatsoever to my understanding/interpretation of the Gospel.

Sure it could have been that way! There are SO many ways of coming up with perfectly logical scenarios to make all of this work together I think they are uncountable!

For that matter isn't Kolob allegedly a planet?   If we want to invent stories, suppose you are an ordinary guy living on Kolob?   What would that be like?

 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

1.  You persistently mix metaphors- this is the reason you do not understand religion in general.  These are stories which are designed to help us find our way and purpose in life and to inspire us.  Historical or scientific accuracy is irrelevant to religion- religion is poetry.  Hawking is clearly one of the most brilliant PHYSICISTS to have ever lived, but he is not much of a poet.  But if you could comprehend that all atheists do NOT comprehend that religion is poetry, not science.   Hawking had his own religion not based on God- clearly he had meaning in his life brought to his life by "The UNKNOWN' - in his case the unknown was physics, and solving its problems gave him meaning- while religionists seek the unknown about meaning of life, not how it goes.

Galileo was a pretty smart dude scientifically but he had it figured out- something I would suggest you think about-  He said "The scriptures teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

2.  Hawking's philosophy here is absurd and contradictory  IF you have stated it correctly

First he denies causality completely by saying he has found something without a cause.  Incidentally THAT was the entire premise behind Aquinas and the boys PROOF for God- the uncaused cause- the FIRST CAUSE, the unmoved mover etc.

But of course Hawking was just as wrong about this as Aquinas but at least Aquinas at least did not contradict himself

Here Hawking says- according to you- and I would like to see the quote- " Hawking is saying that the "cause" couldn't have existed in the universe itself, because for the cause to exist in the universe, it would have needed to cause itself. "

But if it could NOT cause itself - the implication here- then how does it exist?   Either you have an eternal chain of causes or not.  If you are postulating it caused itself, it still had a cause.

But all of that is irrelevant because it's poetry.-  OR CAN BE TAKEN THAT WAY CONSISTENTLY.

That is how you mix metaphors.  You continually think that scripture is a science text.   You appear to be unable to see it otherwise.  You do not understand different paradigms for different purposes, or "language games" or category errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake#:~:text=A category mistake%2C or category,could not possibly have that

I am a little surprised at the apparent vehemence of your response. It seems rather defensive and hasty. I nearly replied as soon as I read it, but then I realized that you may not have really read what I wrote, or if you had, you misunderstood it. The key to my perception of misunderstanding is your statement: 

"Hawking's philosophy here is absurd and contradictory  IF you have stated it correctly"

You seem to have thought I was defending Hawking, which I wasn't. I, too, wrote that his statement was absurd. You agree with me, yet you react as if you don't. So perhaps you haven't understood what I wrote.

And I wasn't stating his philosophy. I was quoting it. From chapter one of his posthumously-released book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions".  

Do me a favor please, and re-read what I wrote. Perhaps more carefully? If you then still feel your reply above was appropriately responsive to what I wrote, then perhaps we are talking past each other.

It's my bedtime.  See you tomorrow, perhaps!

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How could He be otherwise?

An eternal being isn't merely long-lived. Such a being must exist outside of time. 

Believe it or not, Professor Stephen Hawking, who was a profound atheist, made it very clear. In his last book (published posthumously) he wrote:

In the same chapter, he writes:

Note that this is what he "thinks", or this is his opinion, and it is quite logical, absent a creator that exists independently and outside the universe. Now, you can either trust Hawking, or not, but as for me I do believe this line of thought of his makes it abundantly clear that if God exist at all, He must exist outside of time.

COr, in other words, for the Creator to have existed in the creation, he would have needed to create himself! This is absurd, of course, and it should be obvious that the Creator would have had to pre-exist this Universe and be outside it -- and its time -- in order to create it!  

This also logically leads to the fact that the Creator sees the entire Universe, and everything that happens in it, including all time in our past and in our future.

He doesn't need to "figure it out."

 

I have to apologize for my previous post- I was distracted while typing it and I thought I was responding to @stemelbow so I made assumptions about the writer of the post which do not at all apply to you. 

Stemelbow is an atheist and you are not- so I wish I could make that post disappear- I did not mean to accuse you of being an atheist, nor do I think you have a problem generally with mixing science with religion.

Quote

"and it should be obvious that the Creator would have had to pre-exist this Universe and be outside it -- and its time -- in order to create it!  "

This is not a problem as I see it, but of course I do see things in a somewhat different way than most LDS.

I believe that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" and that is the answer to the question you raise here.  I think that we need to see this all as a story full of metaphors from which we can learn a lot about God, but that the stories are somewhat mixed up as stories often are. 

But they teach coherent religious principles anyway

So Christ WAS transcendent and voluntarily decided to become immanent and exist as a human being.   I believe resurrection is involved in the whole process and that we finally as Gods go through a transcendent phase as we enter the celestial kingdom- after of course we have already given up our bodies.   So without bodies as we progress we become transcendent beings, then after resurrection we can decide to devote our progression by creating worlds OR we can take another path that does NOT involve creating worlds and do--- what?   We humans cannot even conceive these possibilities at this time.

So yes, one can be transcendent and pre-exist the universe and time- OR choose to voluntarily give up transcendence to again take on the mission of creating worlds instead of... who knows what?!.

So yes, we can decide our mission has at least two ways of after exaltation progression- one is to give up transcendence voluntarily as Christ as "The Word" did and return to time and become again part of a "new" universe (multiverse) we create for ourselves and our children-  OR some other possibilities we cannot understand yet.

This is all speculation which I see as a logical story- it is one way of resolving all these alleged issues for people who need them.   It is NOT a story "as it is" - that is inconceivable to us now, because we see now through a glass darkly.

Anything we DO believe is always wrong because we cannot grasp the eternities anyway.   All we get are stories and analogies

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have to apologize for my previous post- I was distracted while typing it and I thought I was responding to @stemelbow so I made assumptions about the writer of the post which do not at all apply to you. 

That's fortunate! For I was gearing up for a Battle Royale that am now spared.

😁

[Ahab]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:21 PM, JAHS said:

There have been some scriptures and words of past prophets that have suggested the following:
Jesus is the savior of all the inhabitants of all the worlds He created:
 "Except for his mortal ministry accomplished on this earth, his service and relationship to other worlds and their inhabitants are the same as his service and relationship to this earth and its inhabitants" (Improvement Era, Nov. 1968, 46). MarionG. Romney)

The Spirit world for our planet somehow exists with us on this planet.
"When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? Into the spiritual world…Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes they do…. Do they go beyond the boundaries of the organized earth? No, they do not. [Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe, pp. 376-81. Salt Lake City, 1946.].

All the other worlds created by Jesus have their own spirit worlds that exist on their own planet. 
"As to its location, [the spirit world] is here on the very planet where we were born; or, in other words, the earth and other planets of a like sphere, have their inward or spiritual spheres, as well as their outward, or temporal. The one is peopled by temporal tabernacles, and the other by spirits. A vail [sic] is drawn between the one sphere and the other, whereby all the objects in the spiritual sphere are rendered invisible to those in the temporal. (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1855), 80.)

Because Jesus is the savior of all inhabitants of all the planets can one logically assume that during the three days between
His death and resurrection He somehow visited all the spirit worlds of all those other planets and organized His missionary forces? (Possibly D&C 88:41-61)
Or was it only our spirit world?

I don't think this "Except for his mortal ministry accomplished on this earth, his service and relationship to other worlds and their inhabitants are the same as his service and relationship to this earth and its inhabitants" means what you think it means.

And there was only one day between the day of our Lord's death and the day of his resurrection... Friday, then Saturday, and then Sunday.

[JAHS]

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think this "Except for his mortal ministry accomplished on this earth, his service and relationship to other worlds and their inhabitants are the same as his service and relationship to this earth and its inhabitants" means what you think it means.

And there was only one day between the day of our Lord's death and the day of his resurrection... Friday, then Saturday, and then Sunday.

President Nelson:
"The mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him"  (Russell M. Nelson, "The Atonement," Ensign (November 1996), 35)

That's what I think it means. The atonement He performed on this earth applies to the inhabitants of all worlds.  I extrapolate that to mean that He must have somehow also organized missionaries in all the spirit worlds to preach the gospel.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's fortunate! For I was gearing up for a Battle Royale that am now spared.

😁

Yeah, really sorry about that.  Thanks

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Nelson:
"The mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him"  (Russell M. Nelson, "The Atonement," Ensign (November 1996), 35)

That's what I think it means. The atonement He performed on this earth applies to the inhabitants of all worlds.  I extrapolate that to mean that He must have somehow also organized missionaries in all the spirit worlds to preach the gospel.

That has the feel of truth. And it emphasizes the ineluctable importance of the Savior's sacrifice. 

The Atonement: Not just for Earth.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not a problem as I see it, but of course I do see things in a somewhat different way than most LDS.

As do I, but theology is theology and religion is religion. As you may be aware, religion is the practice growing out of theology, and is likely much more important than theology, since our knowledge of God is far from complete. For if a man believe, yet does not practice his belief, his belief does him no good. 

I see people around me whose knowledge and understanding of theology I surpass (in all my humility, lol), but whose practice of religion greatly surpasses my own. For what is pure and undefiled religion but looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself unstained from the world? Well, I think I have managed to eke out a win in that last item, but my record of home teaching / ministering manages only to serve as a cautionary tale of omission. I might as well call myself the Sometime Saint -- but that label's already been claimed, and where has he vanished to?

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You can believe that Christ lived multiple lives on multiple worlds from the beginning of time until the end of it, if you want. Just because some feel that he did it only once on this earth, and all the rest get Christ by the proxy of this one, isn't important. Ultimately, it isn't important HOW it is done, just that it is DONE.

As @teddyaware said: "I believe the answer is likely more arcane and profound than most would imagine." Amen, and I would never presume to say that I understand it beyond mortal means. 

But the scripture that @The Nehor quoted suggests that this world might very well be the only one where it was possible for Christ to fulfill His mission by being put to death:

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren. (Moses 7:36)

Because how many times must Christ experience the agony of the Atonement, and how many times must He experience death itself and be resurrected, in order to meet the demands of both justice and mercy for all of Father's children?

It's perfectly reasonable for us to assume that He needed to do it only once, and just as messengers (prophets, apostles, and missionaries) are sent out to tell those who did not see Christ's Atonement, death and resurrection for themselves, those who dwell on other worlds would hear it in the same way. It need not happen on their worlds for it to be efficacious on all worlds.

There's an alternative, of course, which posits that each world has its own Christ, and each world's Christ atones only for the sins of the people of that world. If you would prefer that alternative, who's there to gainsay it? Nobody! The scriptures are silent on what happens on other worlds, except to say that there are other worlds, as found in the scripture that was quoted above from Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

 

 

 

Certainly people can believe whatever they want.  Just curious though, my question went unaddressed, if Jesus is not being the Savior again and again for all these worlds, what is he doing?  I mean God has many billions times many billions of thoughts to sort through, every second of every day--that adds up, I'd imagine.  The Holy Ghost has many billions times many billions of spirits to either inhabit, touch or feel offended by (when the subjects been naughty) every second of every day.  Jesus and the women seem to be sitting around twittling thumbs and such.  Or are they all eaves dropping on prayers or trying to help control the Holy Ghost's many manifestations?  

Edited November 17, 2020 by stemelbow

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Certainly people can believe whatever they want.  Just curious though, my question went unaddressed, if Jesus is not being the Savior again and again for all these worlds, what is he doing?  I mean God has many billions times many billions of thoughts to sort through, every second of every day--that adds up, I'd imagine.  The Holy Ghost has many billions times many billions of spirits to either inhabit, touch or feel offended by (when the subjects been naughty) every second of every day.  Jesus and the women seem to be sitting around twittling thumbs and such.  Or are they all eaves dropping on prayers or trying to help control the Holy Ghost's many manifestations?  

The mind of God is infinite and eternal, and for that reason he no doubt has at his means highly advanced heavenly mechanisms and processes required for being able to efficiently handle the workload you describe in a very natural and perfectly effective way that doesn’t require the mind boggling mental gymnastics you describe. The mere fact that the resurrected eternal God, Jesus Christ, could come to this earth and minister to the Nephites in real time and in a very natural, unhurried human interpersonal relationship sort of way, while at the same time sextillions of prayers are being offered up unto God, clearly demonstrates that God can live and enjoy his life without having to have his mind continuously function like an ultra-advanced intergalactic supercomputer in hyperdrive.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As do I, but theology is theology and religion is religion. As you may be aware, religion is the practice growing out of theology, and is likely much more important than theology, since our knowledge of God is far from complete. For if a man believe, yet does not practice his belief, his belief does him no good. 

I see people around me whose knowledge and understanding of theology I surpass (in all my humility, lol), but whose practice of religion greatly surpasses my own. For what is pure and undefiled religion but looking after orphans and widows in their distress and keeping oneself unstained from the world? Well, I think I have managed to eke out a win in that last item, but my record of home teaching / ministering manages only to serve as a cautionary tale of omission. I might as well call myself the Sometime Saint -- but that label's already been claimed, and where has he vanished to?

Good points and a good distinction that I think I will immediately steal

With attribution of course.    The Stargazer Distinction. 

I think that I agree with those who have said that LDS do not have theology- or should not have it at least- because these are the "philosophies of men", and I actually agree with that.

What I am interested in is more "metatheology" as I see it- I wonder about the utility of theology itself and scriptural interpretation. and really the assertion about a distinction between scriptures and the "philosophies of men".   To me that is the crux of it all.  

But I think that is a good distinction between religion and theology.   One could even see scriptures as theology- where religion is the practice and phenomenology of the process of finding God, or if you want to take it further, a purpose in life.  I think that accounts for "secular religions" as well 

As a former young radical Maoist, compared to where I was in my youth as an Altar boy and now as a full fledged member of the Church of JCLDS, I can tell you that there is a LOT about secular religions like communism that is very similar to theistic theology.

Both are ultimately about finding the "Answer" to it all and finding a purpose in life.

Wait a minute....  dang I am late for my meeting for Save the Whales,   

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Certainly people can believe whatever they want.  Just curious though, my question went unaddressed, if Jesus is not being the Savior again and again for all these worlds, what is he doing?  I mean God has many billions times many billions of thoughts to sort through, every second of every day--that adds up, I'd imagine.  The Holy Ghost has many billions times many billions of spirits to either inhabit, touch or feel offended by (when the subjects been naughty) every second of every day.  Jesus and the women seem to be sitting around twittling thumbs and such.  Or are they all eaves dropping on prayers or trying to help control the Holy Ghost's many manifestations?  

Oh my gosh

Jesus IS GOD  John 1

Also tons of others   Ether 3:14

14 Behold, I am he who was ^aprepared from the foundation of the world to ^bredeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the ^cFather and the Son. In me shall all mankind have ^dlife, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my ^esons and my daughters.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh

Jesus IS GOD  John 1

Also tons of others   Ether 3:14

14 Behold, I am he who was ^aprepared from the foundation of the world to ^bredeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the ^cFather and the Son. In me shall all mankind have ^dlife, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my ^esons and my daughters.

If Jesus is spending his days listening to each of our prayers and reading our minds, second by second, then what is his Dad doing?  

[stemelbow]

On 11/17/2020 at 7:28 AM, teddyaware said:

The mind of God is infinite and eternal, and for that reason he no doubt has at his means highly advanced heavenly mechanisms and processes required for being able to efficiently handle the workload you describe in a very natural and perfectly effective way that doesn’t require the mind boggling mental gymnastics you describe.

If it's easy for him, then why do we worship him?  Somehow all the seeming dire workload, that can't really even be fathomed, is nothing more than a cheerful easy contemplation for him.  This comes off more as a "my god's the biggest one" type of thing.  

On 11/17/2020 at 7:28 AM, teddyaware said:

The mere fact that the resurrected eternal God, Jesus Christ, could come to this earth and minister to the Nephites in real time and in a very natural, unhurried human interpersonal relationship sort of way, while at the same time sextillions of prayers are being offered up unto God, clearly demonstrates that God can live and enjoy his life without having to have his mind continuously function like an ultra-advanced intergalactic supercomputer in hyperdrive.

But, that's not a demonstration that is simply a bunch of assumptions piled on top of each other.  If there is no God then all of these assumptions are really just unreasonable flights of fancy.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If it's easy for him, then why do we worship him?  Somehow all the seeming dire workload, that can't really even be fathomed, is nothing more than a cheerful easy contemplation for him.  This comes off more as a "my god's the biggest one" type of thing.  

But, that's not a demonstration that is simply a bunch of assumptions piled on top of each other.  If there is no God then all of these assumptions are really just unreasonable flights of fancy.

In light of the fact that the infinite and eternal atonement of God required infinite and eternal suffering, and that vivid memories of that unfathomable agony, sorrow and spiritual estrangement will forever be the foremost fixture within his mind, I’d say that though God obviously has very efficient ways of hearing and answering prayers the spiritual processes and mechanisms whereby that work is accomplished are, without doubt, perfectly informed by and perfectly reflective of the love of God in all its infinite and eternal fullness and passion. Why should one presume that just because God can do things with marvelous efficiency that somehow the work he performs is divorced or detached in some way from the essence of his perfect divine nature. That you imagined otherwise is a massive assumption on your part.

Edited November 18, 2020 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If Jesus is spending his days listening to each of our prayers and reading our minds, second by second, then what is his Dad doing?  

Three persons, one God.

535 people, one Congress.

50 people one family

archangels

ministering angels

"missionaries" in the spirit world.

Gosh you really go out of your way to imagine non-issues- this is GOD we are talking about.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the fact that the infinite and eternal atonement of God required infinite and eternal suffering, and that vivid memories of that unfathomable agony, sorrow and spiritual estrangement will forever be the foremost fixture within his mind, I’d say that though God obviously has very efficient ways of hearing and answering prayers the spiritual processes and mechanisms whereby that work is accomplished are, without doubt, perfectly informed by and perfectly reflective of the love of God in all its infinite and eternal fullness and passion. Why should one presume that just because God can do things with marvelous efficiency that somehow the work he performs is divorced or detached in some way from the essence of his perfect divine nature. That you imagined otherwise is a massive assumption on your part.

All we are working with is assumption.  There is no good reason to accept there is a God to start with.  As that assumption gets swallowed there are nothing but assumptions put on top of it, as explanation...and surely the explanations are too twisted and contradicted to mean a whole lot.  Your use of words like perfect, eternal, infinite, efficient, relative etc end up as ways to gloss over the issues...so I ask.