Jump to content

Why do we desire separation?


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I appreciate the spirit with which you are giving and taking and it's not really important that we understand all of those details now.  While sharing and exchanging ideasa I just like to point out when I do and when I do not agree, sometimes, if I feel my thoughts are welcomed by whoever I am sharing and exchanging my ideas with.  So don't take it too hard if I tell you I don't agree with you on something or another.  It's just me sharing my ideas with whoever I think may be interested in them.  And you are most welcome to share your ideas with me, whatever they may be, at which point I will usually share my ideas with you.

I'm always willing to share my silly ideas with people!

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The Kolob thing being a black hole thing, meh, I'm not really in favor of that idea, at least not as something our Father lives on or near.  He was talking, through our Lord as his mediator, about things that govern planets such as the one we now live on, calling Kolob a great one because it governs a greater order of planets than the one we live on and is near to him.  So unless there are lesser black holes and black holes govern planets it sounds more likely that Kolob is some kind of star that governs the order of planets our Father lives on, like how suns govern planets by holding those planets in orbit that are near them. 

As far as the black hole thing is concerned, it just popped into my brain at that time. Whether Kolob is a black hole is neither here nor there.

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Like our sun in our solar system governs the planets in our solar system.  So from that I gather that our sun is in orbit around some other sun with other suns of the same order as our sun, with each sun governing planets around each sun. 

I don't know how deep your understanding of astronomy goes -- my own interests make me part of a minority. I'm really into astronomy and cosmology, hence my screen name.

But our sun doesn't orbit any other suns. It does however orbit the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Which is what spawned my speculatory declaration of Kolob as the black hole known as Sagittarius A*, which, based on mass and radius, has been concluded to be the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole. It's like 4.6 million times the mass of our sun. And everything in and around our galaxy orbits around it. But this still doesn't mean that it's Kolob.

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

We aren't told there how many orders of suns and planets there are and I think there are a heck of a lot more than only 3 orders, but we can see how suns can be said to be governors of planets by dictating their orbits with gravity.  So there you have it.  My reasoning for why I believe our Father dwells on a planet near a sun called Kolob that is far enough away from a black hole so that his planet and the sun it orbits doesn't get sucked into a black hole.  YMMV

Yes, we are told very little in the scriptures about how this universe works.

My reasoning for the notion that Father dwells outside this universe is that He is thus equidistant from every part of it, and can see and interact with every part of it simultaneously. And as far as black holes are concerned, He made them, and thus He has access even to their interiors and every part of them. Thus He stands in no danger of being sucked into one.  FWIW

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But do you view the resistance to the doctrine increasing? If so, why is resistance increasing? 

The closer we move in our views to orthodox Christianity (removing/downplaying unique doctrine and focusing only on first principles) the more non-denominational our members become.  There are many members who love the "all you need is Jesus and love" approach.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The way we should see it is that we have  a God who had the option of  transcendence and all that implies, and made a free choice to give it all up so 

It's not that He's too high for us to aspire to his level, what is unbelievable to me is that He gave it all up for US, to enable us to become LIKE HIM.

He took on our form to be like us so we could be like him, to die like him so we could be like him in death, that we might live again like Him in the eternities.

Case in point.  This idea of God choosing to become mortal as Christ is not LDS, it's orthodox Christianity.  (And I know @mfbukowski understands our nuanced theology better than that, but the phrasing is there anyway).

God as Christ didn't condescend to become mortal in LDS theology by choice.  That's Trinitarian. He walked the same necessary path to gain a physical body for his spirit as the rest of us.  He had to.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm always willing to share my silly ideas with people!

As far as the black hole thing is concerned, it just popped into my brain at that time. Whether Kolob is a black hole is neither here nor there.

I don't know how deep your understanding of astronomy goes -- my own interests make me part of a minority. I'm really into astronomy and cosmology, hence my screen name.

But our sun doesn't orbit any other suns. It does however orbit the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Which is what spawned my speculatory declaration of Kolob as the black hole known as Sagittarius A*, which, based on mass and radius, has been concluded to be the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole. It's like 4.6 million times the mass of our sun. And everything in and around our galaxy orbits around it. But this still doesn't mean that it's Kolob.

I'm not a stargazer like you are but I try to understand as I am instructed.  You know who is my favorite teacher.  I've wondered about Polaris being at least one of the stars that is "greater" than our sun and it at least seems to be a star other stars orbit, from our perspective.  I'm not locked into that idea though, it just seems like a likely candidate, even as a triple star system. 

55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, we are told very little in the scriptures about how this universe works.

Fortunately we have the gift of the Holy Ghost to help us know the truth of all things, personally.

55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

My reasoning for the notion that Father dwells outside this universe is that He is thus equidistant from every part of it, and can see and interact with every part of it simultaneously.

By outside of it I wonder if you might mean in another dimension.  Like how spirits of the dead are here on this planet even though we usually don't see them.  There would still be distance from object to object though, rather than everywhere equidistant.  Our Father as a person can be in only one place at a time even though others may be able to see him or feel his influence from wherever we or they are.  So I don't understand what you are imagining.  

55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

And as far as black holes are concerned, He made them, and thus He has access even to their interiors and every part of them. Thus He stands in no danger of being sucked into one.  FWIW

 

Black holes still have a tendency to suck all matter into them, so he and the planet (or whatever) he lives on would need to have some way to compensate for that sucking power. Otherwise yes he would just get sucked into it, or stop it from sucking.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

God as Christ didn't condescend to become mortal in LDS theology by choice.  That's Trinitarian. He walked the same necessary path to gain a physical body for his spirit as the rest of us.  He had to.

Nope. 

Nobody "had to".

We all made a choice- quite obviously since the belief is that 1/3 of us decided NOT to receive a body and go with Satan's plan.   Satan was a "son of the morning", as Chirst was, but decided not to follow the plan.

Of course in another sense we all "had to" go along with the plan in order to become like Father ourselves.

This point interests me.  How does chosing to follow a commandment- the will of the Lord- constitute being "Trinitarian"?   It is quite possible that this new convert of only 40 years missed a nuance of doctrine- if so, please explain.

Or we could open a new thread- that would be better probably.

I will never believe that Jesus "had to" do anything-  that would mean that his choices were determined, and so he merited nothing for his role as savior- he was a robot because he "had to" come to earth and endure all that.

He knew what his role would be and he chose it with full, omniscient knowledge of every detail.   THAT is why in a moment of human weakness he prayed to his father to "Take this cup" IFF it was Father's will.

Nope.  I ain't buyin' it.

That point - that he "had to" - would be inconsistent with the entire paradigm.

I am sure it's semantics- it ALWAYS is.

And by the way I have no problem with having a personal relationship with Christ.  Being against that smacks of McConkieism.

And there is this for primary children

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=en

Quote

 

Lucifer wanted Heavenly Father to change his plan. Lucifer said he would save everyone by taking away their freedom to choose, which would have made it impossible for us to make mistakes or be righteous. Lucifer also wanted all the honor (Moses 4:1).

Because he loved us (John 15:13), Jesus volunteered to be our Savior. He wanted to follow Heavenly Father’s plan and give the glory to Heavenly Father (Moses 4:2).

Heavenly Father chose Jesus to be our Savior. Lucifer was angry and rebelled against Heavenly Father (Revelation 12:7–9; Moses 4:3–4).

Heavenly Father’s spirit children had to decide whether to follow Jesus or Lucifer.

One-third of Heavenly Father’s spirit children chose to follow Lucifer, and they were all cast out of heaven. Lucifer became Satan, and the spirits who followed him became evil spirits, who try to get us to do wrong things. These spirits who followed Satan did not receive physical bodies.

All the spirits who chose Heavenly Father’s plan and followed Jesus in the premortal life have been or will be born on earth with physical bodies of flesh and blood.

All the children in this classroom chose to follow Heavenly Father’s plan and have been born on earth with mortal bodies.

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Error

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I had a longer logic based post that went POOF for reasons unknown.  Your premise violates agency- and even Satan had a choice, as one of the sons of the morning, and obviously he did not "have to come to earth"

But here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

You are misunderstanding my use of the word choice and I think you know that.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This point interests me.  How does chosing to follow a commandment- the will of the Lord- constitute being "Trinitarian"?   It is quite possible that this new convert of only 40 years missed a nuance of doctrine- if so, please explain.

Orthodox Christianity teaches God only condescended to become mortal as Christ for us.  Mormonism teaches Christ was a spirit child in just as much need of a physical body to progress as the rest of us.  Yes he had agency like the rest of us.  But he still couldn't progress without a body.  That was as much the reason he came as saving us.

Implying Christ had everything needed for exaltation without a physical body or that somehow his personal progression to become like the Father didn't require the journey through mortality is false doctrine.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
On 7/26/2021 at 7:03 PM, JLHPROF said:

There are two new threads today addressing our potential exaltation as Gods and God's mortal origin.

Both threads contain statements arguing that God (and probably Christ) are simply different kinds of beings than the rest of us.

I'd like to discuss the mindset we have as believers in God that makes so many of us want to keep this differentiation strong.  Many members bristle at the idea we become Gods, instead saying gods.  Joint heirs?  Not really exactly having every blessing Christ receives.  Some even seem to loathe any comparison between us and Deity.

Why do we want to keep godhood on an unreachable pedestal?  Why do we want to keep God and Christ eternally different from us? Why can't many of us believe we can become exactly as they are, even if it takes millennia?

I have been reading the Joseph Smith Paper manuscripts along with D&C sections in Come, Follow Me this year. One thing that struck me is that Joseph Smith (and scribe) capitalized the lower-case “gods” in our edition, and never bothered to go back and edit that particular part. The lower-case “g-“ argument is dead to me, even if it never held much weight anyways.

Edited by halconero
Link to comment
5 hours ago, bOObOO said:

I've wondered about Polaris being at least one of the stars that is "greater" than our sun and it at least seems to be a star other stars orbit, from our perspective.  I'm not locked into that idea though, it just seems like a likely candidate, even as a triple star system.

Polaris is currently the pole star, and it is less than one degree away from the rotational north pole. But it hasn't always been so. Due to the precession of the equinoxes (as well as the stars' actual movement through the sky), the role of North Star has passed (and will pass) from one star to another in the remote past (and in the remote future). The previous pole star was Kochab (Beta Ursae Minoris), the brightest star in the bowl of the "Little Dipper", located 16 degrees from Polaris. It held that role from 1500 BC to AD 500. It was not quite as accurate in its day as Polaris is today. In 1 AD, around the time of Christ's birth, there was no Pole Star. In 3000 BC, the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star, aligning within 0.1° distance from the celestial pole, the closest of any of the visible pole stars. However, at magnitude 3.67 (fourth magnitude) it is only one-fifth as bright as Polaris, and today it is invisible in light-polluted urban skies. So, I think reliance on Polaris as a Kolob candidate is problematic.

PoleStarPrecession.png

Link to comment
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The closer we move in our views to orthodox Christianity (removing/downplaying unique doctrine and focusing only on first principles) the more non-denominational our members become.  There are many members who love the "all you need is Jesus and love" approach.

While I agree that removing/downplaying unique doctrine is a trend in the Church, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings in this particular case leave a lot of room for believing that "regular" men and women being exalted does not lead to becoming head Gods. While I don't think the trending away from everyone becoming head Gods is due to these past teachings (most aren't even aware of them), it does end up being more in line with them. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Orthodox Christianity teaches God only condescended to become mortal as Christ for us.  Mormonism teaches Christ was a spirit child in just as much need of a physical body to progress as the rest of us.  Yes he had agency like the rest of us.  But he still couldn't progress without a body.  That was as much the reason he came as saving us.

Implying Christ had everything needed for exaltation without a physical body or that somehow his personal progression to become like the Father didn't require the journey through mortality is false doctrine.

Of course it is.

Where did I say that or even imply it?

You said "he had to". What was that supposed to mean?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Polaris is currently the pole star, and it is less than one degree away from the rotational north pole. But it hasn't always been so. Due to the precession of the equinoxes (as well as the stars' actual movement through the sky), the role of North Star has passed (and will pass) from one star to another in the remote past (and in the remote future). The previous pole star was Kochab (Beta Ursae Minoris), the brightest star in the bowl of the "Little Dipper", located 16 degrees from Polaris. It held that role from 1500 BC to AD 500. It was not quite as accurate in its day as Polaris is today. In 1 AD, around the time of Christ's birth, there was no Pole Star. In 3000 BC, the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star, aligning within 0.1° distance from the celestial pole, the closest of any of the visible pole stars. However, at magnitude 3.67 (fourth magnitude) it is only one-fifth as bright as Polaris, and today it is invisible in light-polluted urban skies. So, I think reliance on Polaris as a Kolob candidate is problematic.

PoleStarPrecession.png

Problematic, okay, but not much of a problem to figure out.  I'd say all of those stars in that area are potential candidates, and the celestial pole is a suitable term.  So even if suns/stars don't actually orbit around other suns/stars the fact that some appear to do that may be all that our Father was talking about when describing to Abraham what he sees, with most if not all suns/stars governing planets that are near them by their influence of gravity, and some suns/stars closer to him than others.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You are misunderstanding my use of the word choice and I think you know that.

No.

I was not wearing my Carnak turban.

I have no clue what you wanted to say

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

While I agree that removing/downplaying unique doctrine is a trend in the Church, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings in this particular case leave a lot of room for believing that "regular" men and women being exalted does not lead to becoming head Gods. While I don't think the trending away from everyone becoming head Gods is due to these past teachings (most aren't even aware of them), it does end up being more in line with them. 

So now we've got head Gods and non-head Gods?  When was this terminology introduced?

I'm guessing those of us who become joint-heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ are or will be the head Gods, and all who don't become joint-heirs with him are or will be the non-head Gods.  Or else who would the head Gods be?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

So now we've got head Gods and non-head Gods?  When was this terminology introduced?

I'm guessing those of us who become joint-heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ are or will be the head Gods, and all who don't become joint-heirs with him are or will be the non-head Gods.  Or else who would the head Gods be?

First born spirit sons of each wife (who will also become saviors, a requirement of being a head God, according to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt). 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, rongo said:

First born spirit sons of each wife (who will also become saviors, a requirement of being a head God, according to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt). 

Okay, thank you.  Makes a little bit more sense to me now.  I wonder if Satan may have met the first qualification but not the second because he did not become a savior.  Ultimately a head God is a savior we can all become joint-heirs with if we choose to be.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Problematic, okay, but not much of a problem to figure out.  I'd say all of those stars in that area are potential candidates, and the celestial pole is a suitable term.  So even if suns/stars don't actually orbit around other suns/stars the fact that some appear to do that may be all that our Father was talking about when describing to Abraham what he sees, with most if not all suns/stars governing planets that are near them by their influence of gravity, and some suns/stars closer to him than others.

Why is it necessary to identify Kolob? And why does it need to be a pole star? 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why is it necessary to identify Kolob? And why does it need to be a pole star? 

So I can go there someday.  I won't be able to get there unless I find out where it is.  No hurry though.  I'm still working on figuring out how I will be able to travel through space, or so-called outer space.

Maybe Kolob doesn't need to be a pole star but a pole star seems like a likely candidate for a star that other stars orbit or seem to orbit.  That type of star is what I think a pole star is.  And I think our Father was talking to Abraham about stars and planets.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

My ultimate goal/desire is to be happy as God is happy. Some speculate that such happiness is found in the beatific vision. My assumption is to be happy as God is I should become as or like God is. :)

I think that to become like God, as perfect as he is, we need to at least try to be like he is.  I would at least like to get an A for effort.  I don't think we will become like him just by wanting to be.  It takes more than desire.  It also takes effort.  To try to be.

Edited by bOObOO
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

So I can go there someday.  I won't be able to get there unless I find out where it is.  No hurry though.  I'm still working on figuring out how I will be able to travel through space, or so-called outer space.

Maybe Kolob doesn't need to be a pole star but a pole star seems like a likely candidate for a star that other stars orbit or seem to orbit.  That type of star is what I think a pole star is.  And I think our Father was talking to Abraham about stars and planets.

Well, I think you're unnecessarily assuming that "ruling over" means "rotating around", or in this case, "seems to rotate around". The verses imply that Earth isn't the only planet (or star) that Kolob rules over. Is Kolob also the pole star for all these others? As of 1 July 2021, there are 4,777 confirmed exoplanets in 3,534 planetary systems, with 785 systems having more than one planet. Most of those so far discovered are fairly close to Earth, so it might be assumed that all or a substantial number of them are of the class that Kolob rules over. Their orbital planes are all over the place. Virtually none of those planets that are potentially habitable would have rotational axes that point towards any of the stars identified as being periodic pole stars of Earth.

But yes, I'd like to go there someday, too. By the time I am able to do so, its identity will be entirely clear.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I think you're unnecessarily assuming that "ruling over" means "rotating around", or in this case, "seems to rotate around". The verses imply that Earth isn't the only planet (or star) that Kolob rules over. Is Kolob also the pole star for all these others? As of 1 July 2021, there are 4,777 confirmed exoplanets in 3,534 planetary systems, with 785 systems having more than one planet. Most of those so far discovered are fairly close to Earth, so it might be assumed that all or a substantial number of them are of the class that Kolob rules over. Their orbital planes are all over the place. Virtually none of those planets that are potentially habitable would have rotational axes that point towards any of the stars identified as being periodic pole stars of Earth.

But yes, I'd like to go there someday, too. By the time I am able to do so, its identity will be entirely clear.

At this point I'm only trying to understand the reason or reasoning our Father was using when he said through our Lord to Abraham that Kolob was... what he said it was.  You have the words as I have them.  Stars governing planets, it sounds like to me.  And I can see how stars can be said to govern planets by affecting their orbits by gravity.  If you figure out more than that, then feel free to let me know and I will consider those ideas.  I feel that I am on the right track but I don't understand everything yet.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

At this point I'm only trying to understand the reason or reasoning our Father was using when he said through our Lord to Abraham that Kolob was... what he said it was.  You have the words as I have them.  Stars governing planets, it sounds like to me.  And I can see how stars can be said to govern planets by affecting their orbits by gravity.  If you figure out more than that, then feel free to let me know and I will consider those ideas.  I feel that I am on the right track but I don't understand everything yet.

Welcome to the club.

Link to comment
On 7/26/2021 at 7:03 PM, JLHPROF said:

There are two new threads today addressing our potential exaltation as Gods and God's mortal origin.

Both threads contain statements arguing that God (and probably Christ) are simply different kinds of beings than the rest of us.

I'd like to discuss the mindset we have as believers in God that makes so many of us want to keep this differentiation strong.  Many members bristle at the idea we become Gods, instead saying gods.  Joint heirs?  Not really exactly having every blessing Christ receives.  Some even seem to loathe any comparison between us and Deity.

Why do we want to keep godhood on an unreachable pedestal?  Why do we want to keep God and Christ eternally different from us? Why can't many of us believe we can become exactly as they are, even if it takes millennia?

I think for me, it's because I can't ever be like Christ.  Christ is sinless.  He is justified by the law.  I can't ever be that.  No matter how many millenia goes by.  I will always be someone who was/is only worthy  because of the Savior.

And that's why, in my mind, He will forever be eternally different from me.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...