Is Lumen Output An Indicator Of Our God's Power?

[Sara H]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I think this should be a more serious discussion. Do we believe there are other Gods beside our God or not? That see over other Galxiies or Universes? Does God have a Father? We know he has a Son. Do they eternally progress in knowledge?

Rodheadlee, you have some wonderful questions! It's as if we've gone back in time, and I'm having this conversation with a fellow Latter-day Saint in the 1980s or 1990s, back when we weren't embarrassed by our belief in several gods. My point of view is that there are not merely a number of Gods presiding over a number of different worlds, but rather something closer to billions of Gods presiding over billions of different universes. I also think that there is definitely more than one heaven dispersed throughout the expanse of space. 

 

Doesn't our religion say that there will come a day in the endless evolution of our souls when we will become gods? In that case, you should revisit this conversation and read some of the more critical comments that people have made about what I have stated. Did I ever suggest that our God is a clumsy imbecile, a backward rube, or a primitive Neanderthal in any of my posts? I cannot say that I did, but that's what I'm accused of. Many of the people posting believe that what I stated is an attempt to make fun of God. However, I do not believe that this is the case. Rather, I believe that I am seeing our God in the same manner that I believe the men and women who helped create his church back in the 1800s viewed him. This is in contrast to the more Christianized version of God that many LDS people find it more comfortable seeing him as. You see, I think that this christianized version of God that many LDS people regard God as is an attempt to water down our teaching so that members find it easier to sale the gospel to people who might be interested in becoming converts. The way in which we are redefining God is not acceptable to me. 

 

It only makes sense that our God is subservient to his God, just as Jesus God is subordinate to father God. Therefore, you are correct, rodheadlee, if what we believe is true and God was once like we are today, then it only makes sense that our God is subordinate to his God. And to say that our God isn't as knowledgeable as the God he is subordinate to is not an insult; rather, it is an acknowledgment that we believe in eternal progression, and not just a progression of status, which seems narcissistic to me; rather, a progression of knowledge, which shows that the God's that have come before us are humble and willing to admit that they are learning as we are also doing the same thing. 

 

Rodheadlee, I want to express my gratitude to you for not being deterred from having an open conversation about our doctrine by the anxieties expressed by other users. 

[MustardSeed]

Our religion definitely makes space for many Gods. 

[CA Steve]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

You have this all wrong!  Clearly you have no reasonable grasp of the rock/lumen capacity that God is capable of!   

The problem was not with God, the problem was that Joseph only had enough faith currency to acquire the Thummim model X, which is only equipped with "firefly mode"; unlike the brother of Jared who had enough to acquire not one, but 16 Urim 2000's, which when set on level 2 (out of 10 levels) had enough lumen capacity to light-up an entire barge as if it was daylight.   Clearly you are an amateur when it comes to the lumen capacity of stones. 

I get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I have seen elsewhere where people have suggested that the U&T could have been just an electronic device similar to the phones we have today. That always puzzled me. If God could provide JS with a rock that acted like an e-reader why not just give him a paper copy of the entire manuscript?

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I have seen elsewhere where people have suggested that the U&T could have been just an electronic device similar to the phones we have today. That always puzzled me. If God could provide JS with a rock that acted like an e-reader why not just give him a paper copy of the entire manuscript?

That's easy. No effort required doesn't lead to a revered sacred text. Flying on a jet plane to Hawaii does not lead to the same place as sailing 22 days to get there. There will not be the same level of satisfaction and joy upon reaching the destination. 

[webbles]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I think this should be a more serious discussion. Do we believe there are other Gods beside our God or not? That see over other Galxiies or Universes? Does God have a Father? We know he has a Son. Do they eternally progress in knowledge?

I don't think we believe they progress in knowledge.  There's mention of them progressing in power and authority, but I've never heard of them progressing in knowledge.  It has always felt that once you become a "God", you have gone through all of the schooling required.

[rodheadlee]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think we believe they progress in knowledge.  There's mention of them progressing in power and authority, but I've never heard of them progressing in knowledge.  It has always felt that once you become a "God", you have gone through all of the schooling required.

It would be good to hear a serious debate on this.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

That's easy. No effort required doesn't lead to a revered sacred text. Flying on a jet plane to Hawaii does not lead to the same place as sailing 22 days to get there. There will not be the same level of satisfaction and joy upon reaching the destination. 

Given all that Joseph Smith went through to produce the Book of Mormon, reading the text off a stone as opposed to getting it on a sheaf of paper hardly seems like a big difference in his level of effort.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I don't think we believe they progress in knowledge.  There's mention of them progressing in power and authority, but I've never heard of them progressing in knowledge.  It has always felt that once you become a "God", you have gone through all of the schooling required.

In the sense they know all that is knowable…if we become one with God it seems knowledge would be part of that.  But perhaps there are somethings that are unknowable till those things appear due to how agency happens or maybe there are places where true randomness occurs, specific details not being known even if general ones are because averages of behaviour are known .

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I have seen elsewhere where people have suggested that the U&T could have been just an electronic device similar to the phones we have today. That always puzzled me. If God could provide JS with a rock that acted like an e-reader why not just give him a paper copy of the entire manuscript?

That puzzles me too.  For what it's worth, I think the seer stones were just rocks.  I don't personally believe that there was anything special about them.  I don't think there were any luminary projections emanating from any stone.  I also believe that the story of the brother of Jared is a mythical story teaching spiritual principles, akin to Noah's ark.   I don't believe in luminary rocks that act as light bulbs or have words glowing from them.   I think what joseph saw and experienced was a spiritual experience that happened in his mind's eye.  I think the hat simply acted to help limit sensory information to assist him in entering an altered state of consciousness, akin to some sort of deep meditation.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Given all that Joseph Smith went through to produce the Book of Mormon, reading the text off a stone as opposed to getting it on a sheaf of paper hardly seems like a big difference in his level of effort.

We are a narrative church and the Restoration’s beginnings, especially the stories of how the Book of Mormon came to be, is the biggest narrative of our community; it adds to the sense of depth and purpose. I think having the narrative of his struggles, his and other early church members elevates the beginnings of the restoration in sacredness as well as emotionally connects us to him and the others. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Given all that Joseph Smith went through to produce the Book of Mormon, reading the text off a stone as opposed to getting it on a sheaf of paper hardly seems like a big difference in his level of effort.

So take the jet airplane, right?

I guess if you haven't been there and done that you wouldn't understand.

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Now that I see you actually want to have a semi-serious discussion about your highly presumptuous ideas, I will now prove your proposition is flat out wrong and ill informed from the start. Errors like yours are what happens when a thesis is developed without factoring in all the available evidence.

In point of fact, the original divine translation tool that Moroni buried along with the plates was a Urim and Thumim, which was a pair of ancient “eyeglasses” with specialized “lenses” made of crystalline earthly material, modified by the Lord in such a manner as to allow a man with sufficient faith and spiritual power to become a seer —  someone enabled of God to translate lost languages into existing languages. Church history indicates that this original translating tool was made to be used in the broad daylight, without the seer having to sit in a pitch dark room that would have made it impossible for a scribe to do his work.

If you doubt me, I ask you why would God create a translating tool designed to be worn like eyeglasses, but needing to be used in pitch dark rooms that would have made the work of the scribes impossible to accomplish? The problem is that the historical accounts inform us that much of the work of translation was accomplished in the broad daylight, when conditions would have made it impossible to block out enough daylight for the “lenses” of the  Urim and Thummim to work in the way you suggest they need to work.

At any rate (perhaps in prophetic anticipation to your questions) the Lord did in fact create the very scientific instrument you presume he didn’t create — a translating tool powerful enough illuminate the spiritual mind and function effectively in the absence of physical darkness. So now you’ll have to go back to the drawing board and figure out another way to demonstrate that our God is a sort of backward rube, a primative Neanderthal when compared the more intelligent and technologically advanced Gods.

P.S. But in fairness to you, perhaps the Urim and Thummim actually were designed to work in the pitch dark rooms and the Lord did in fact reveal to Joseph how to create dark rooms, while also providing to Martin, Emma and and Oliver one lumen flashlights that enabled the translating rooms to remain dark enough for the work of translation to go forward, while simultaneously allowing for the presence of just enough light for the scribes to perform their work? Anything’s possible…

 

Were the Urim and Thummim used in translation? I thought the words appeared on a seer stone that he found prior to the golden plates, the seer stone was placed in a hat to block light, and he placed his head in the hat to read the words.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

It would be good to hear a serious debate on this.

I think Sarah's problem was that she started with the idea that God's progress in knowledge and assumed that most people already believed that.  She didn't give any foundation from scriptures or modern prophets.  Is there anything in the scriptures or modern teachings that gives the idea that God progresses in knowledge?  I think I've heard strict denials of that idea so I don't see how we can believe it.

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think Sarah's problem was that she started with the idea that God's progress in knowledge and assumed that most people already believed that.  She didn't give any foundation from scriptures or modern prophets.  Is there anything in the scriptures or modern teachings that gives the idea that God progresses in knowledge?  I think I've heard strict denials of that idea so I don't see how we can believe it.

For instance, from "Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions", Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote "No" as an answer to the question "Do gods continue to learn throughout eternity?"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I think Sarah's problem was that she started with the idea that God's progress in knowledge and assumed that most people already believed that.  She didn't give any foundation from scriptures or modern prophets.  Is there anything in the scriptures or modern teachings that gives the idea that God progresses in knowledge?  I think I've heard strict denials of that idea so I don't see how we can believe it.

There was also the problem she rated his ability so low, as in somewhat incompetent or not too capable yet as a creator (I don’t know how else to describe the implications of her idea that he was unable to put a body together decently), which seems quite contrary to scripture. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Were the Urim and Thummim used in translation? I thought the words appeared on a seer stone that he found prior to the golden plates, the seer stone was placed in a hat to block light, and he placed his head in the hat to read the words.

Hopefully this is readable. This is one summary of the process (from a paper examining the descriptions of the process that we have).  It starts on page 184 or 67 depending on the choice of count.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/nicholson/2015-12-18/nicholson_spectacles_2013.pdf

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully this is readable. This is one summary of the process (from a paper examining the descriptions of the process that we have).  It starts on page 184 or 67 depending on the choice of count.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/nicholson/2015-12-18/nicholson_spectacles_2013.pdf

I assume the Nephite interpreters are the Urim and Thummim. Are they like glasses like Teddyaware said? I'm just trying to reconcile Teddy's comments with this description. Or were they more like Joseph's seer stone?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I assume the Nephite interpreters are the Urim and Thummim. Are they like glasses like Teddyaware said? I'm just trying to reconcile Teddy's comments with this description. Or were they more like Joseph's seer stone?

Nowadays members typically use “Urim and Thummin” to refer only to the interpreters and many assume this was how they originally did it.  That is incorrect though, so historically speaking (for early Mormon history) the phrase could mean the interpreters or the seer stone. 
 

The interpreters were apparently clear stones that were set in a spectacle framework that could be removed. Since the spectacles didn’t fit Joseph’s face, they were too wide iirc, he got in the habit of removing them and probably putting them in a hat to look at.

The setup first to wear them like spectacles as opposed to looking at them in a hat is confusing because spectacles are typically looked through instead of at. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

MN, This may be helpful, especially the section showing illustrations of the process. You have to scroll down a bit to get to it. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

This is what it is assumed the breastplate/spectacle setup looked like:

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Pictures of the hat version…not that you probably need those:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2015/04/30/artwork-of-joseph-smith-translating-the-book-of-mormon

[Calm]

My understanding is by the time he was working on what we currently have, he was using the hat method, but could have been the seerstone or the interpreters, though in my experience most modern comments assume it was only the seerstone in the hat (that may be due to where I hang out).
 

He originally worked on a part of the plates that is now lost, what we call the 116 lost pages. This manuscript was from a different set of plates than the ones he used the second time around (for covering the same time period as the lost pages covered).  An acquaintance, Don Bradley, has reconstructed the content of the post pages (in summary, not word for word) from documents and written a fascinating book.  The flavor of that section was quite different in some ways than what we ended up with, temple themes were more obvious for example. Nauvoo teachings weren’t as novel as some think, but apparently the theme goes back to these original pages. Parallels with the Old Testament (appropriate given the time period of the first part of the BoM) were stronger as well. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-116-Pages-Reconstructing-Mormons/dp/158958760X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?

Let me know if you want to know more

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

MN, This may be helpful, especially the section showing illustrations of the process. You have to scroll down a bit to get to it. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

This is what it is assumed the breastplate/spectacle setup looked like:

Which of these accounts is it then? When Joseph needed to translate, did he put his head in a hat or did he utilize the breastplate, which had weird looking glasses built into it? Or was it more of a vision that he had, or something that he figured out in his thoughts, as you said it might be? I'm sorry, but you're making things more difficult for me to understand. 

The above picture makes it seem as if Joseph was reading from the plates during the translation process but I've always heard the opposite. 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

Doesn't our religion say that there will come a day in the endless evolution of our souls when we will become gods? In that case, you should revisit this conversation and read some of the more critical comments that people have made about what I have stated. Did I ever suggest that our God is a clumsy imbecile, a backward rube, or a primitive Neanderthal in any of my posts? I cannot say that I did, but that's what I'm accused of. Many of the people posting believe that what I stated is an attempt to make fun of God. However, I do not believe that this is the case. Rather, I believe that I am seeing our God in the same manner that I believe the men and women who helped create his church back in the 1800s viewed him. This is in contrast to the more Christianized version of God that many LDS people find it more comfortable seeing him as. You see, I think that this christianized version of God that many LDS people regard God as is an attempt to water down our teaching so that members find it easier to sale the gospel to people who might be interested in becoming converts. The way in which we are redefining God is not acceptable to me. 

Which general authorities are redefining God?  Who is not allowing room for the belief (it never was an official doctrine) in multiple God's?   

I personally believe in a lineage of God's. There certainly are historical teachings in that regard, but nothing doctrinal that I know of - hence the modern-day hesitancy to teach it as doctrine.   I have never heard anything taught against the belief I hold.   Do you have any sources you can provide that shows that we are "redefining" God?

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

It only makes sense that our God is subservient to his God, just as Jesus God is subordinate to father God.

 It doesn't make sense to me to have division of ranks in true divine oneness - at least in the way I imagine it.  

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

Therefore, you are correct, rodheadlee, if what we believe is true and God was once like we are today, then it only makes sense that our God is subordinate to his God.

Maybe when he was a mortal, but why would it continue to make sense after he was exalted and reached a state of oneness in omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience? 

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

And to say that our God isn't as knowledgeable as the God he is subordinate to is not an insult; rather, it is an acknowledgment that we believe in eternal progression, and not just a progression of status, which seems narcissistic to me; rather, a progression of knowledge, which shows that the God's that have come before us are humble and willing to admit that they are learning as we are also doing the same thing. 

The idea that God is progressing in knowledge is not something that I have heard taught.  I have heard taught that he is omniscient, however - that is how God has historically been taught in our church so I'm not sure who is doing the redefining here. 

Eternal progression is a mystery.  One theory is that it is a progression of offspring that can only be enjoyed as an exalted being/God. 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Which of these accounts is it then? When Joseph needed to translate, did he put his head in a hat or did he utilize the breastplate, which had weird looking glasses built into it? Or was it more of a vision that he had, or something that he figured out in his thoughts, as you said it might be? I'm sorry, but you're making things more difficult for me to understand. 

The method changed over time, it was both.  Probably the best info on descriptions by observers (Joseph never did describe what was going on except to say it was by the gift and power of God even when invited to provide the story) would be the Nicholson article.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/nicholson/2015-12-18/nicholson_spectacles_2013.pdf

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Which general authorities are redefining God?  Who is not allowing room for the belief (it never was an official doctrine) in multiple God's?   

I personally believe in a lineage of God's. There certainly are historical teachings in that regard, but nothing doctrinal that I know of - hence the modern-day hesitancy to teach it as doctrine.   I have never heard anything taught against the belief I hold.   Do you have any sources you can provide that shows that we are "redefining" God?

 It doesn't make sense to me to have division of ranks in true divine oneness - at least in the way I imagine it.  

Maybe when he was a mortal, but why would it continue to make sense after he was exalted and reached a state of oneness in omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience? 

The idea that God is progressing in knowledge is not something that I have heard taught.  I have heard taught that he is omniscient, however - that is how God has historically been taught in our church so I'm not sure who is doing the redefining here. 

Eternal progression is a mystery.  One theory is that it is a progression of offspring that can only be enjoyed as an exalted being/God. 

 

I guess I see these things a bit differently than most today, but I think over time my view will eventually triumph.

As earthly humans we cannot comprehend any of this; the only "truth" we can hope for is what we stitch together from 1- testimony and 2- reason.

What is the best theory/ paradigm ( which creates the best solution to lead to spiritual progression) that puts it all together?

That God is represented in theory to be a glorified human being, like possibly other glorified humans, to whom we can speak and receive solace, acting as "Our Father" in thse function.

As such, yes he would be one with others who can communicate with us through "conscience" or the "still small voice" which we have all experienced when making moral decisions.  As a glorified human, he must dwell in some kind of community of other such humans.

He has decided to act, for our benefits, to stick with natural law, perhaps beyond our ability to understand yet, to do what He does.

This paradigm then represents the actions of an Ideal Human seeking to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life, so we can "grow up and be just like Mom & Dad" including Christ, an actual, historical human who achieved these goals, and whom we can emulate to the best of our abilities.

HOW he does these things is beyond our scientific ability and is therefore irrelevant for discussion; to me the only reasonable question is whether or not this is the best functional paradigm for WHY God exists and what his purposes are.

I see discussions about silly human ideas about lumen output as quite frivolous AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, unanswerable and therefore useless.

What can we possibly learn from such discussions?

I don't want to be harsh but seriously, we can debate how lightsabers work or traveling at warp speed would probably be more useful!