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

[rodheadlee]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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! 

 

 

I disagree. The question really is does God's knowledge increase with age/time or experience? Lumens is just an example to get the discussion started.

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, Sara H said:

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. 

Sara, could you list the attributes of God (or beliefs about God) that you believe have been "Christianized" in today's church, and also explain exactly what point in time you mean for how "the men and women who helped create his church back in the 1800s viewed him"?

I ask this because people, both inside and outside the church, pick and choose all the time on what they will say of the teachings of the church in any given era, depending on what they want to prove or how they see things.  For example, if you want to go back to the year 1830, many critics of the church will claim that Joseph Smith had a very "Christianized" view of God at that time.  Or in the mid-1800s, you'll find a lot of speculation going on about God, some of which was even debated (to some degree) within the church, even to the point that Brigham Young denounced some of the things that Orson Pratt wrote in his publication "The Seer".  

I don't think it's fair to make claims that the Church has "Christianized" our view of God when many of those debated teachings about God have never been the official doctrines of the church, or that there is not an official view on how to interpret some of the statements that were made.  But there are some doctrines very unique to the restored church (as compared to modern Christianity) that the church has always been up front about, including the teaching that we can become gods (becoming like our Heavenly Father), and that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. 

You've made these claims before but you've always been rather vague and haven't provided many examples (if any).  So let's get to the heart of the matter.

Which general authorities are redefining God?  Provide specifics. Provide sources. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Which part do you feel is a different?  This aligns with my beliefs/views as well and I actually would argue that this is probably the predominant LDS view. 

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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! 

Agreed.  I think arguing about these things is pointless as it is an unanswerable question.  The only potential benefit I see in discussing issues like this is when people's testimonies may get hung up on these silly things, or it may not even be that serious, but may just be an issue of curiosity in trying to have things make sense in their head.  Sometimes simply offering a different potential way of viewing things can help.  Not presented as fact, but simply another possible way of viewing things.  Can we discover what actually happened through debate?  No.  But we do have historical accounts and descriptions of events that may be troubling to people and contradict their belief system.  So, sometimes offering alternate views can be helpful for people that like to have things conceptually make reasonable sense to them.   

[CA Steve]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So take the jet airplane, right?

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

So can i assume that you have been there and done that in translating your own scriptures?

If not, your condescension and inept analogy is duly noted.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I disagree. The question really is does God's knowledge increase with age/time or experience? Lumens is just an example to get the discussion started.

So how can we answer your version of the question?

What is the proceedure?

How do we test his growing IQ?

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me know if you want to know more

I always want to know more 😊 but this answers my questions. Thank you!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I disagree. The question really is does God's knowledge increase with age/time or experience? Lumens is just an example to get the discussion started.

Scripture mentions "eternal progression".

That's sufficient for me.

https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-13?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-13

Edited August 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So can i assume that you have been there and done that in translating your own scriptures?

If not, your condescension and inept analogy is duly noted.

No offense was intended. If you haven't sailed 2,200 miles in the open ocean in a small boat I guess you wouldn't understand that's all I was saying. Sorry for making an analogy, I will bow out of this conversation.

Edited August 11, 2023 by rodheadlee

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No offense was intended. If you haven't sailed 2,200 miles in the open ocean in a small boat I guess you wouldn't understand that's all I was saying. Sorry for making an analogy, I will bow out of this conversation.

Good point. I cannot imagine the kinds of experiences, religious and simply "hunches" about the weather and seas etc. that one must have to accomplish such a feat to simply stay alive; indeed probably like translating scripture!

Amazing!

I imagine it must entail a sense of unity with nature others never receive, nor need to experience 

Edited August 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No offense was intended. If you haven't sailed 2,200 miles in the open ocean in a small boat I guess you wouldn't understand that's all I was saying. Sorry for making an analogy, I will bow out of this conversation.

I have read enough of your past posts to know that your claim of sailing that far in a small boat is no idle boast and is an impressive feat, so much so I think it is much more of an accomplishment than producing a text like the Book of Mormon in less than three months by dictating off a 19th century version of an e-reader. But, having done neither, I am probably not in a position to evaluate the comparison. My larger point was, after going through all Smith did to produce the BoM, it does not seem to me that big a difference between dictating off the stone vs just getting a paper manuscript. Perhaps a sailing analogy could still be found, like the difference between sailing a boat that far with a small back up engine vs without. Either way an impressive feat.

[mfbukowski]

No, God made the universe, so I vote that he can make even better flashlights than we can.

Seriously?????

Oh my.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, God made the universe, so I vote that he can make even better flashlights than we can.

Seriously?????

Oh my.

Not the least serious on my part.  This is just taking my brain for a spin to see how far it can go…though to be honest it’s not getting much of a workout.  I prefer my thought experiments a little more layered.

I don’t see this as having much to do with God at all, but it is interesting in seeing people’s views of God.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not the least serious on my part.  This is just taking my brain for a spin to see how far it can go…though to be honest it’s not getting much of a workout.  I prefer my thought experiments a little more layered.

I don’t see this as having much to do with God at all, but it is interesting in seeing people’s views of God.

It's unfathomable.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/10/2023 at 4:00 PM, pogi said:

Which part do you feel is a different?  This aligns with my beliefs/views as well and I actually would argue that this is probably the predominant LDS view. 

Agreed.  I think arguing about these things is pointless as it is an unanswerable question.  The only potential benefit I see in discussing issues like this is when people's testimonies may get hung up on these silly things, or it may not even be that serious, but may just be an issue of curiosity in trying to have things make sense in their head.  Sometimes simply offering a different potential way of viewing things can help.  Not presented as fact, but simply another possible way of viewing things.  Can we discover what actually happened through debate?  No.  But we do have historical accounts and descriptions of events that may be troubling to people and contradict their belief system.  So, sometimes offering alternate views can be helpful for people that like to have things conceptually make reasonable sense to them.   

For the life of me, I cannot imagine to know why "what really happened" is still a goal in the 22nd century, when each of us knows that the flesh in the cerebrum consists of an incredible tangle of nerve fibers in a box, which has never been " outside" of its stony prison, and can only perceive "what really happened" according to what nerve information it receives and can put into some kind of format it understands to be "rational".

All we can "know" is in this ball of nerve fibers as it sees the alleged "outside world" and we actually are still stupid enough to think that these nerve messages are "reality"?

What's wrong with people?

All we CAN know is what this ball of tissue tells us, and we think it is accurately reported the world "as it is", which it has NEVER known?

To me this ought to be KNOWN as the greatest fallacy that the ball of nerves has created for its own survival.  Nice that it at least does that much for us.

Yes, the purple mushrooms might mean death, or not.

But there is a whole lot going on that we cannot ever know.

All we can do is go with what works, and don't eat the purple mushrooms.