In the Beginning....

[Saint Bonaventure]

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

I would say that "In the beginning..." from Genesis 1 would, in context, be in reference to the organization of this world and the beginning of our sojourn here.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I would say that "In the beginning..." from Genesis 1 would, in context, be in reference to the organization of this world and the beginning of our sojourn here.

 

Ahh. Okay. You would not consider the "In the beginning" in Genesis as an absolute beginning.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

Yes.

50 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion?

I think most contextualize it with the creation of this world.

50 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

"The beginning" of this world's temporal existence.

50 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa.

I think we cannot really conceptualize this at present.

I am reminded of the lyrics of If You Could Hie To Kolob (particularly verses 1, 2, 3 and 5) :

 

1. If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,
Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers,
“No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains,
Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter;
There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit;
There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue;
There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom;
There is no end to light.
There is no end to union;
There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood;
There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory;
There is no end to love;
There is no end to being;
There is no death above.
There is no end to glory;
There is no end to love;
There is no end to being;
There is no death above.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Ahh. Okay. You would not consider the "In the beginning" in Genesis as an absolute beginning.

Yep.  I think you may find this April 1998 Ensign article helpful: 

“In the Beginning”:

A Latter-day Perspective

By Robert J. Woodford

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

I agree with the other comments above.  

You are correct that there is no such thing in Mormonism as an "immaterial cause".   I tend to think that "the beginning" in genesis references our universe, as it includes the creation of the stars in the heavens, etc.  

What is the scientific answer to what existed before the big bang?  I like this answer:

Quote

Short answer: We don't know. Long answer: It could have been a lot of things, each mind-bending in its own way. 

https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html

Some think that matter did exist before the big bang:

Quote

It's possible that before the Big Bang, the universe was an infinite stretch of an ultrahot, dense material, persisting in a steady state until, for some reason, the Big Bang occured. This extra-dense universe may have been governed by quantum mechanics, the physics of the extremely small scale, Carroll said. The Big Bang, then, would have represented the moment that classical physics took over as the major driver of the universe's evolution.

https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html

The eternal existence of matter would correspond with our beliefs.  Matter on an "extremely small scale" may be what is meant in the revelation which states that "all spirit is matter, but is more refined or pure...".  Of course, there is also the possibility of a multiverse with other much older universes. 

 

[Que]

In the Pearl of Great Price version of the Moses story, the Lord explains that Moses' vision will focus on this particular world... In my mind that is the explanation of the terminology you bring up...

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him ^aface to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own ^bpurpose have I made these things. Here is ^cwisdom and it remaineth in me.

32 And by the ^aword of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of ^bgrace and truth.

33 And ^aworlds without number have I ^bcreated; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the ^cSon I ^dcreated them, which is mine ^eOnly Begotten.

34 And the ^afirst man of all men have I called ^bAdam, which is ^cmany.

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 ^aknow them.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng

 

[MrShorty]

I'm not certain Mormonism offers a solid answer to the OP's question. I am reminded of an "ancient" (in internet time) essay by Blake Ostler where he suggests (https://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/08/the-challenges-of-non-existent-mormon-theology )

Quote

The primary task of Mormon theology for the foreseeable future is to assess its relationship to naturalism and the scientific worldview. Many Mormons view God as located within and limited by our "particular universe," which began some fourteen billion years ago with the big bang and is thus subject to all of the limitations of natural law. Others see God as transcending the existing natural universe because God is the organizer not only of this universe, but of many others. God's relationship to the natural universe, whether God had a beginning of his divinity, and whether God is at the mercy of limitations of natural laws, remain major issues for Mormon thinkers to work out.

There are threads within LDS thought that suggest a God who exists within the universe and can manipulate matter and energy in the universe, but He did not "create" said matter/energy. Other threads (like my own) where God is the force behind the big bang (since that is our current best guess cosmology) and manipulates matter and energy from outside the universe.

 

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

I sometimes think that some of what Joseph Smith said (like when he talks about matter being eternal) was influenced by a Newtonian idea of the universe -- the universe (and all its matter and energy) has no beginning and no end. But I don't think anything concrete can be said, though I do note that this "static" universe would have been dominant until the 20th century (note that even Einstein initially began assuming a static, eternal universe).

Ultimately, I agree with Ostler. The Church hasn't thought hard enough on these kinds of questions, so there aren't solid answers to what the Church really believes. There are a variety of viewpoints among Church members. Perhaps, at some point, we need to come to some consensus what we think.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What is the scientific answer to what existed before the big bang? 

The question itself may be the problem in that what does the term "exist" actually mean when speaking of pre-big bang? I once had someone explain it this way:

Quote

"It's like asking which way is north when one is standing on the north pole."

The physical laws which allow us to describe our current existence may very well not apply to pre-big bang.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa.

In our religion there is no "ex nihilo" creation.

When we read in the beginning it refers to the beginning of this creation, which is one of many creations that have existed.
And we believe that there will be future creations with future Gods creating worlds.

D&C 93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Similar to
Proverbs 8:22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

[Saint Bonaventure]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not certain Mormonism offers a solid answer to the OP's question. I am reminded of an "ancient" (in internet time) essay by Blake Ostler where he suggests (https://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/08/the-challenges-of-non-existent-mormon-theology )

There are threads within LDS thought that suggest a God who exists within the universe and can manipulate matter and energy in the universe, but He did not "create" said matter/energy. Other threads (like my own) where God is the force behind the big bang (since that is our current best guess cosmology) and manipulates matter and energy from outside the universe.

 

I sometimes think that some of what Joseph Smith said (like when he talks about matter being eternal) was influenced by a Newtonian idea of the universe -- the universe (and all its matter and energy) has no beginning and no end. But I don't think anything concrete can be said, though I do note that this "static" universe would have been dominant until the 20th century (note that even Einstein initially began assuming a static, eternal universe).

Ultimately, I agree with Ostler. The Church hasn't thought hard enough on these kinds of questions, so there aren't solid answers to what the Church really believes. There are a variety of viewpoints among Church members. Perhaps, at some point, we need to come to some consensus what we think.

What you've provided is immensely helpful. Thank you. This Ostler fellow is on-point, from what I can see.

As I look for points of commonality, fundamentals are important to me. What Ostler says about a God who "exists within the universe" is a colossal sticking point. I can envision endless Catholics and Protestants quoting John 1 at LDS friends and passersby, and the LDS folks having a completely distinct understanding of those passages. The notion that came up a few weeks ago concerning God possibly being subject to laws is interwoven in this issue too.

The second perspective articulated by Ostler, and with which you express agreement, is much more recognizable to me. 

Again, thank you so much for providing a little clarity.

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

 

It's important to realize that the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the Universe. It requires some very specific initial conditions (so far best explained by inflation) and the universe could extend temporally into the infinite past*.

 

As a note, there is no way Moses or any other ancient (or pre-Newtonian) individual, no matter how smart, would have had any kind of ability to event conceptualize the correct nature of the universe in any way that the Big Bang would have made sense and not introduced serious misunderstandings and errors**. As such, I don't read Genesis as being a description of the creation of the Universe. For me, Genesis reads just fine as pertaining to the organization of just our solar system.

 

* Though, this isn't necessarily friendly to the way most LDS think about an infinite past. The universe was very, very different prior to the Big Bang.
** Given our lack of any kind of scientific understanding of spirit matter, the same statement could well apply to us today as to the true nature of the Universe.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

For me, Genesis reads just fine as pertaining to the organization of just our solar system.

 

Genesis doesn't seem to do a great job of explaining the creation of our world even.  What it does seem to do (from the very very little I've read on it) is describe the creation of our world in a way that aligned with what contemporary ancient cultures believed about it.

If we try to use Genesis as a scientific (or actual) explanation of the creation of our world, it doesn't work.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Ahh. Okay. You would not consider the "In the beginning" in Genesis as an absolute beginning.

Correct.

And, for what it's worth, I don't believe the author of Genesis believed it was an absolute beginning either. Ancient Jews believed that God organized the world out of chaos (i.e., eternal formless matter); the concept of absolute creation or creation ex nihilo is a much latter invention in the philosophy of religion.

An addition which, in my personal opinion, causes more (and more serious) problems than it solves - specifically with respect to the problem of evil.

For if God truly creates all things, including finite agents (which is the bucket that classical philosophy places humans into) absolutely, knowing beforehand the actual future consequences of His own creative choices, then He is an accessory before the fact and ultimately responsible for every moral defect in the universe.

So, on the bright side, I suppose positioning God outside of time and space lets you make an argument for Him being the First Cause; but it does so at the expense of Him being a Creator that anyone would actually want to worship.

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa.

"In the beginning..." is just a starting point for the spiritual message we are about to contemplate concerning the plan of salvation. It uses spiritual, not scientific, reasoning to describe and explain the universe of our personal, eternal experience or progress. Spiritual principles and materials underpin the natural, mortal world we live in, including the science we come up with.  Spirit and element are both eternal and material, just different kinds of substance. They are perceived differently in different settings, all having a temporal aspect to them. So, there is no such substance as "immaterial" except to mean "irrelevant," and God is ultimately relevant to everything and everyone.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Similar to
Proverbs 8:22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Wisdom literature.  Some of my favorite!

She was with the Lord before the creation of the world and man, she rejoiced in the sons of men and called us her children...who is she I wonder? Hmmm...

Quote

32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

 

[The Nehor]

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called “Our Turn” by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a world was formed. The world was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Genesis doesn't seem to do a great job of explaining the creation of our world even.  What it does seem to do (from the very very little I've read on it) is describe the creation of our world in a way that aligned with what contemporary ancient cultures believed about it.

If we try to use Genesis as a scientific (or actual) explanation of the creation of our world, it doesn't work.

If you want to try to fit the Genesis account in it can be done. If you were to watch some kind of fast-forwarded version of the earth evolving from a position on the Earth the “days” are in a correct order. It is just that the sun and moon and stars appearing are not their creation but the dense early atmosphere clearing up. Of course the firmament holding out the outer space water is a little harder to fit in.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called “Our Turn” by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a world was formed. The world was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”

If you want to try to fit the Genesis account in it can be done. If you were to watch some kind of fast-forwarded version of the earth evolving from a position on the Earth the “days” are in a correct order. It is just that the sun and moon and stars appearing are not their creation but the dense early atmosphere clearing up. Of course the firmament holding out the outer space water is a little harder to fit in.

And the Sun, moon and stars being inside the reverse snow-globe (which keeps the water out instead of keeping it in), is also kind of a hard sell. 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the Sun, moon and stars being inside the reverse snow-globe (which keeps the water out instead of keeping it in), is also kind of a hard sell. 

Yeah, it is more that I could see the Genesis story coming from someone who had some kind of vision involving watching the earth progress as seen from the earth’s surface. Stuff like the firmament would have been put in if they believed it was real or someone later down the line wrote up the story and was sure the firmament was real.

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to try to fit the Genesis account in it can be done. If you were to watch some kind of fast-forwarded version of the earth evolving from a position on the Earth the “days” are in a correct order. It is just that the sun and moon and stars appearing are not their creation but the dense early atmosphere clearing up. Of course the firmament holding out the outer space water is a little harder to fit in.

I don't envy God some tasks, like explaining the cosmos.

1. Don't say anything that is overtly false and and blatantly incorrect.
2. Describe the truth in a way that could be conceptualized by mortals with incredibly limited understanding.

I think the educational analog of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies, where instead of momentum and position we have understandable and true.  "The more true something is, the less understandable it is. The more understandable something is, the less true it is."  

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis.

With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? 

I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)."

But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? 

Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa.

Something else to look at: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/01-thoughts?lang=eng

Some sippets:

"These writings come from an ancient culture that can seem foreign and sometimes strange or even uncomfortable. And yet in these writings we see people having experiences that seem familiar, and we recognize gospel themes that witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ and His gospel."

"To find the Savior in what you read, you may need to ponder patiently and seek spiritual guidance. Sometimes the references to Him seem very direct, as in Isaiah’s declaration “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: … and his name shall be called … The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). In other places, the Savior is represented more subtly, through symbols and similarities—for example, through the descriptions of animal sacrifices (see Leviticus 1:3–4) or the account of Joseph forgiving his brothers and saving them from famine."

"Don’t expect the Old Testament to present a thorough and precise history of humankind. That’s not what the original authors and compilers were trying to create. Their larger concern was to teach something about God—about His plan for His children, about what it means to be His covenant people, and about how to find redemption when we don’t live up to our covenants. Sometimes they did it by relating historical events as they understood them—including stories from the lives of great prophets. Genesis is an example of this, as are books like Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Kings."

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, it is more that I could see the Genesis story coming from someone who had some kind of vision involving watching the earth progress as seen from the earth’s surface. Stuff like the firmament would have been put in if they believed it was real or someone later down the line wrote up the story and was sure the firmament was real.

Scholars have talked about how the world view described in Genesis fits very nicely in with the world view of other cultures during that time in that area.  So it's likely (in my opinion and in conjunction with what I've heard others teach) that God used what people already "knew" about the world to teach them more about Him and their relationship to Him, rather than teaching a class on creation 101.

Like how Ammon just went with King Lamoni's "Is God the Great Spirit" idea to teach him about God, even though it probably did not actually match the Nephites' view of God all that much.

[Saint Bonaventure]

22 hours ago, Nofear said:

It's important to realize that the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the Universe. It requires some very specific initial conditions (so far best explained by inflation) and the universe could extend temporally into the infinite past*.

 

As a note, there is no way Moses or any other ancient (or pre-Newtonian) individual, no matter how smart, would have had any kind of ability to event conceptualize the correct nature of the universe in any way that the Big Bang would have made sense and not introduced serious misunderstandings and errors**. As such, I don't read Genesis as being a description of the creation of the Universe. For me, Genesis reads just fine as pertaining to the organization of just our solar system.

 

* Though, this isn't necessarily friendly to the way most LDS think about an infinite past. The universe was very, very different prior to the Big Bang.
** Given our lack of any kind of scientific understanding of spirit matter, the same statement could well apply to us today as to the true nature of the Universe.

I want to respectfully differ with you on several points. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I do want to address a couple of things that we can continue to discuss, if you want.

I am aware of some scientists who theorize about "mechanisms of inflation," but a somewhat nuanced view of the Big Bang is the majority view. I'm not a physicist, but my reading on this suggests work on a "singularity" that, problematically, is inconsistent with relativity theory, may exist 10 to the -43 seconds before the BB. The majority understanding, like this one from Nasa.gov, is still that:

"Our universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago," NASA - Brief History of the Universe

 

The infinite past idea has a logical knot in it that I'm unable to unravel. I'll venture an analogy:

The universe is like a greenhouse. The "open" sign represents today--the present, and all the plants in the greenhouse represent every day in the past. If the past had an infinite number of days (or plants), and every day must happen or "be counted" before today can happen, then the greenhouse will never open and today will never happen. But today has happened, time moved through every day before today, and therefore there could not have been an infinite number of days in the past. Consequently, there must have been a first day, and thus a beginning of the universe.

 

Regarding your point that an ancient individual would not be able to correctly conceptualize the nature of the universe--that isn't an issue for Catholicism. Catholics see truth as unfolding through time, not only in a subjective way, but also in relation to objective, natural truths. I think this notion is central to the different understandings between Catholics and LDS in some fundamental ways. Catholics see the Church in continuity, all the way back to the gathering at Sinai, and see that continuity as an unfolding, or succession of truth. Apostolic succession is certainly part of that, but Catholics don't need to see every belief and practice (or Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline, as we like to say) at every point in history or place on the earth, even in the New Testament Church. That's kind of the whole point of Sacred Tradition and having a Magisterium. Apostasy can happen--the latter parts of the 9th century through the mid-11th century were rough, no popes were Sainted or Blessed between St Nicholas the Great (858-867) and St. Gregory the VII (1073-1085), but there were Saints and Blessed, there were miracles, and there was authority)--but in Catholic thinking, apostasy never amounts to the gates of hell prevailing (Matt. 16:18) and restorations occur within continuity.   

My understanding of LDS teaching is that at some point it's not about continuity. There's argued to be a general, comprehensive apostasy that necessitates a restoration, a perhaps a general pattern of apostasy and restoration that has culminated in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I've forgotten how to break the quotes again. I'm an idiot.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I want to respectfully differ with you on several points. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I do want to address a couple of things that we can continue to discuss, if you want.

I am aware of some scientists who theorize about "mechanisms of inflation," but a somewhat nuanced view of the Big Bang is the majority view. I'm not a physicist, but my reading on this suggests work on a "singularity" that, problematically, is inconsistent with relativity theory, may exist 10 to the -43 seconds before the BB. The majority understanding, like this one from Nasa.gov, is still that:

"Our universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago," NASA - Brief History of the Universe

 

The infinite past idea has a logical knot in it that I'm unable to unravel. I'll venture an analogy:

The universe is like a greenhouse. The "open" sign represents today--the present, and all the plants in the greenhouse represent every day in the past. If the past had an infinite number of days (or plants), and every day must happen or "be counted" before today can happen, then the greenhouse will never open and today will never happen. But today has happened, time moved through every day before today, and therefore there could not have been an infinite number of days in the past. Consequently, there must have been a first day, and thus a beginning of the universe.

 

Regarding your point that an ancient individual would not be able to correctly conceptualize the nature of the universe--that isn't an issue for Catholicism. Catholics see truth as unfolding through time, not only in a subjective way, but also in relation to objective, natural truths. I think this notion is central to the different understandings between Catholics and LDS in some fundamental ways. Catholics see the Church in continuity, all the way back to the gathering at Sinai, and see that continuity as an unfolding, or succession of truth. Apostolic succession is certainly part of that, but Catholics don't need to see every belief and practice (or Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline, as we like to say) at every point in history or place on the earth, even in the New Testament Church. That's kind of the whole point of Sacred Tradition and having a Magisterium. Apostasy can happen--the latter parts of the 9th century through the mid-11th century were rough, no popes were Sainted or Blessed between St Nicholas the Great (858-867) and St. Gregory the VII (1073-1085), but there were Saints and Blessed, there were miracles, and there was authority)--but in Catholic thinking, apostasy never amounts to the gates of hell prevailing (Matt. 16:18) and restorations occur within continuity.   

My understanding of LDS teaching is that at some point it's not about continuity. There's argued to be a general, comprehensive apostasy that necessitates a restoration, a perhaps a general pattern of apostasy and restoration that has culminated in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I've forgotten how to break the quotes again. I'm an idiot.

 

To the bolded statements, these these things are true for Latter-day Saints as well.

To the underlined statement, we do believe in an apostasy and a restoration, but it is a falling away of priesthood authority to act in the name of God and a confusion and/or loss of some doctrine.  And a restoration of that authority and doctrine that could only occur by God intervening directly.

Kind of an "new wine cannot go into old bottles because the bottles can't handle it" idea.

[Nofear]

37 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I want to respectfully differ with you on several points. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I do want to address a couple of things that we can continue to discuss, if you want.

I am aware of some scientists who theorize about "mechanisms of inflation," but a somewhat nuanced view of the Big Bang is the majority view. I'm not a physicist, but my reading on this suggests work on a "singularity" that, problematically, is inconsistent with relativity theory, may exist 10 to the -43 seconds before the BB. The majority understanding, like this one from Nasa.gov, is still that:

"Our universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago," NASA - Brief History of the Universe

The infinite past idea has a logical knot in it that I'm unable to unravel. I'll venture an analogy:

The universe is like a greenhouse. The "open" sign represents today--the present, and all the plants in the greenhouse represent every day in the past. If the past had an infinite number of days (or plants), and every day must happen or "be counted" before today can happen, then the greenhouse will never open and today will never happen. But today has happened, time moved through every day before today, and therefore there could not have been an infinite number of days in the past. Consequently, there must have been a first day, and thus a beginning of the universe.

I've heard/seen several astronomers be a little incorrect or outdated in their cosmological thinking (cosmology != astronomy). It is a correction that is taking time to propagate outside the community of cosmologists and many still tend to lump inflation into the hot big bang model. It's a bit of linguistics but there is quite good reason for separating the two.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

 

As far as the infinite past goes ... there isn't any observation for or against it (much less proof). Several different models allow it. The argument that today could never have happened because if the past were infinite then there would always be a yesterday ad infinitum has a lot to compare to Zeno's Paradox. Though Zeno's Paradox seems to argue that motion between points A and B is impossible, yet reality shows that it does. (It's also fairly straight forward to resolve Zeno's Paradox, though physics and not just pure math holds some of the key.)