Interplanetary Travel & The LDS's

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Maybe He is doing the same and is doing it through you?

I do believe he is. I also believe the world and humanity are the way they are because it is necessary for us for some reason we are not fully aware of and not because our God is the equivalent of a teenager attempting to build his own studio apartment in his parents’ backyard with minimal training, no instruction manual, and no help from Dad or Mom.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Calm has just mentioned SOME of her medical problems and her trials.  Attacking her in this way, imo, is way out of line.

Thanks for having my back.  
 

I hadn’t mentioned them yet though to her at least this time around iirc, so I don’t see that comment as that kind of attack, though it was irrelevant to the point I was making imo. Just because Christ experienced the worst that mankind goes through does not somehow make the pain mortals suffer less, as you pointed out so well. While I haven’t had a cluster migraine, shingles, broken bones (except for toes), and other top ten most painful medical problems, I have seen those who do. And seen it go on and on. 

The question is if that pain is necessary and if it’s only because God couldn’t do a very good job of creation and couldn’t be bothered to ask for help or imitate  the more advanced Gods’ way of creating, that is unnecessary and therefore cruel and evil pain.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Calm

[blackstrap]

We are told that we all agreed to come to mortality. If so, did we do so " sight unseen " so to speak, or were we at least aware of what we might face ? Is it possible that we even chose to suffer in certain ways? Pure speculation if not heresy , I know. 

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

We are told that we all agreed to come to mortality. If so, did we do so " sight unseen " so to speak, or were we at least aware of what we might face ? Is it possible that we even chose to suffer in certain ways? Pure speculation if not heresy , I know. 

 

I hope we did it that way.

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

We are told that we all agreed to come to mortality. If so, did we do so " sight unseen " so to speak, or were we at least aware of what we might face ? Is it possible that we even chose to suffer in certain ways? Pure speculation if not heresy , I know. 

 

We didn't see it but we were told:
"At the Grand Council we also learned the purpose for our progression: to have a fulness of joy. However, we also learned that some would be deceived, choose other paths, and lose their way. We learned that all of us would have trials in our lives: sickness, disappointment, pain, sorrow, and death. But we understood that these would be given to us for our experience and our good . If we allowed them to, these trials would purify us rather than defeat us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball [2006], 15–16)." (Gospel Topics: Council in Heaven)

Assuming you agree with what the church teachs.

Edited August 12, 2023 by JAHS

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

We didn't see it but we were told:

There has been no precise revelation on how we communicated before mortality. Perhaps spirits can’t create sound waves that are needed for hearing or have the necessary structures for receiving it as we do now in our ears.  Can a spirit ear register sound waves? (I think they likely do as spirit is refined matter, whatever that is and is not immaterial, just pointing out why we shouldn’t assume).  Maybe the future was conveyed to us through telepathy. Or instead of just hearing a verbal description, maybe God used visions of what was to come because that was simply a more efficient way of explaining. Perhaps we were told of our experience to come by actually being shown what it would look like and maybe even what it would feel like to the extent we could register similar feelings (spiritual pain exists after all, imo, I believe anguish often has a spiritual side to it, reverence is I believe a spiritual feeling).

I like to think that after death if anyone decides they want to complain about how the experience wasn’t fair because they weren’t prepared for it, God can instantly replay a scene from the Council with a slight smile and a “remember this?” where they are being shown what was to come for them in minute detail and them saying “looks great, God, can’t wait till it’s my turn on earth!”  
 

No excuses, no wiggle room allowed to play victim to God’s alleged whims or others’ choices. Full knowledge and full acceptance. It makes for a much more satisfying image for me than God saying “trust me, you will love it…eventually”.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Sara H said:

What's this extreme suffering you are talking about?

Have you ever been nailed to a cross so that nails held your  body weight? Have you ever felt like the sins of the whole world was on your back? Have you ever had to take responsibility for everyone's mistakes and die to pay the price? Have you ever been whipped 39 times? Have you ever had to carry a 165 pound cross 2000 feet on your back? If we think about what Jesus had to go through, it's possible that your idea of extreme pain isn't the same as God's.

I think you set the bar too high for becoming a God. It seems like you're okay with the Gods gaining status and power along the path of eternal progression, but you seem upset by my idea that the Gods can learn while still moving forward. If what you think is true, it seems a little self-centered to me for the Gods to be able to progress without gaining knowledge. 

You or I could guess why the Gods let the world be so messed up. I learn more when I'm going through hard times. How about you?

 

People who are unempathetic when others suffer because they have suffered worse are generally jerks.

A god who would do the same is genuinely terrifying.

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Pain isn’t a contest.  I suggest never minimizing someone else’s experience or suffering. 

Whose pain did I try to lessen? 

Do you find it offensive to talk about the pain Christ suffered through?

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Why would this be of any benefit to those beings?  Our mortal existence is only one step, why would it need to be prolonged?

 

Why does it need to be 50 to 100 years? 

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

Better start drinking

Any suggestions? I have no clue where to start. 

[Sara H]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

to compare someone's pain

What comparison?

[Sara H]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am learning I am even more willing to try anything that might work in order to see my child have a normal, happy life. Why wouldn’t God be doing the same?

Who say he isn't? Pain and suffering isn't pleasant, but they teach us more than we can imagine right now. I'm talking eternally. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Sara H

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Who say he isn't? Pain and suffering isn't pleasant, but they teach us more than we can imagine right now. I'm talking eternally. 

1) if having pain and suffering is better for teaching, then why are more advanced Gods not also constructing mortal bodies similar to ours rather than ones much less likely to be sick and to break down?

2) if the bodies more advanced Gods are the ones that are better for teaching, then why hasn’t our God asked for help to construct them that way or followed a well established recipe of one of the more advanced Gods?

Edited August 12, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

1) if having pain and suffering is better for teaching, then why are more advanced Gods not also constructing mortal bodies similar to ours rather than ones much less likely to be sick and to break down?

When do people in the military go through the hard and painful process of boot camp? Is it when they first join or when they get to the rank of Admiral? And as they advance, some may say that the pain and suffering diminishes. What is our God like if we think of the way he has changed over time as a military rank? Is he a private, a lieutenant, or maybe even a captain? I think it's likely that he's a Lieutenant. Which means that many Gods out rank him and that he still has to go through some pain and suffering as he learns. Because we are his children, we also have to go through hard times as we learn. 

 

I think a more advanced God, say an Admiral, doesn't need to use as much pain and suffering to teach his children because his children start out on a higher rung of the endless progression ladder than we do. Because his children are smarter than we are, his understanding makes it easier for him to teach them. What I mean is that we're not as refined as the mortals who worship a more refined God. So how our God teaches us is nothing like what a more advanced God might teach his children. 

 

  

 

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not following you. What do the doctrines of religion have to do with whether or not there are aliens, and whether or not they exist? Why would folks who subscribe to certain doctrines have a "tremendously hard time" embracing that aliens exist? Perhaps you could explicitly state which religions and which doctrines you are talking about? I am a pretty mainstream Evangelical and I can't think of any issues that my faith includes that would cause me to have a hard time embracing the reality of life on other planets. I don't see that question or issue engaging with embracing Christ as my Savior. Are you talking about non-Christian religions? Tell me more about the presuppositions behind your statement that I quoted. Methinks not everything is about religion. Thanks.

If we find out that aliens have been to Earth, they will probably tell us that there are Gods or that there are no Gods at all. If there are no Gods, it's clear that all faiths are fake. If there is only one God and his children live on more than one world, then the LDS doctrine is more accurate than the diluted Christian doctrine. Even if we find out from aliens that there are more than one God, LDS people are even more right. This is why I think we shouldn't try to act like we're more Christian than LDS. There is no good that can come from trying to show people that we are more Christian than the LDS. 

How would Christianity benefit if we find out there's beings that can travel to other worlds?

[Navidad]

I have one question that may simply be irrelevant, but I am as you know insatiably curious. I thought the gods that the LDS talk about humans morphing into via exaltation are gods with a small g - like the use of the term in the Old Testament. On this thread I read constant use of the term with upper-case g - or Gods. The two words (god and God) are completely different for me. Are they the same for my LDS friends? Will those exalted to the celestial kingdom's highest level be gods or Gods? Or are the two words interchangeable in LDS theology? Is it a distinction without a difference for the LDS? Thanks.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

20 minutes ago, Sara H said:

If we find out that aliens have been to Earth, they will probably tell us that there are Gods or that there are no Gods at all. If there are no Gods, it's clear that all faiths are fake. If there is only one God and his children live on more than one world, then the LDS doctrine is more accurate than the diluted Christian doctrine. Even if we find out from aliens that there are more than one God, LDS people are even more right. This is why I think we shouldn't try to act like we're more Christian than LDS. There is no good that can come from trying to show people that we are more Christian than the LDS. 

How would Christianity benefit if we find out there's beings that can travel to other worlds?

How would aliens from other planets know any more about the existence of God than we do? What if the aliens who arrive or have arrived here are atheist aliens? What does that tell us? It tells us they aren't much different than is humanity. What if they are Christian aliens? What if they are agnostic? They might even be LDS! All we know then is that they mirror humanity. That doesn't impact my faith. If there is only one God and His children live on more than one world, that reality would have no impact on my faith or doctrine. My faith teaches that whatever was created, was created by God in some way. Ex-Nihilo has many different possible meanings. No one specific interpretation is a matter of doctrine. Most Hebrew words have many different possible translations. Dogma (used in its dogmatic sense) may come from one specific translation - not doctrine - at least not in my world . . . err.....universe.....err.....galaxy!

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Why does it need to be 50 to 100 years? 

You didn’t answer my question.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Whose pain did I try to lessen? 

Do you find it offensive to talk about the pain Christ suffered through?

I’m not going to argue with you. What I said and responded to was clear enough. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have one question that may simply be irrelevant, but I am as you know insatiably curious. I thought the gods that the LDS talk about humans morphing into via exaltation are gods with a small g - like the use of the term in the Old Testament. On this thread I read constant use of the term with upper-case g - or Gods. The two words (god and God) are completely different for me. Are they the same for my LDS friends? Will those exalted to the celestial kingdom's highest level be gods or Gods? Or are the two words interchangeable in LDS theology? Is it a distinction without a difference for the LDS? Thanks.

The famous Lorenzo Snow couplet might offer some insight into how, I would suppose, most LDS think on the matter:

”As man now is, God once was; as God [capital G] now is, man may be.”

 

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

The famous Lorenzo Snow couplet might offer some insight into how, I would suppose, most LDS think on the matter:

”As man now is, God once was; as God [capital G] now is, man may be.”

 

Thanks my friend. I have been told by LDS friend scholars that the use of the couplet is in decline in the church. Is that true? Based on your response to my previous question, should I believe that the two - God and god are interchangeable in LDS theology and eschatology?  

For example, in the translation I prefer of Psalm 82: 1, it uses both God and gods in the same verse. Verse 6 uses small g - gods. Verse 8 uses large G- God. This is deliberately and consciously done. Does that distinction not exist for the LDS? If not, then how does one defend against accusations of polytheism in the LDS pantheon? I think I should know this, but I can't put it together in my mind right now. Does my friend Pogi aspire to be as God the Father some day? Or does he aspire to be as the gods in Psalm 82:6? Or is there no difference? I don't want to hijack the thread, and since I think I should understand this better, don't feel that you have to reply. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

What comparison?

If you don't see it, I can't help.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

think a more advanced God, say an Admiral, doesn't need to use as much pain and suffering to teach his children because his children start out on a higher rung of the endless progression ladder than we do. Because his children are smarter than we are, his understanding makes it easier for him to teach them. What I mean is that we're not as refined as the mortals who worship a more refined God. So how our God teaches us is nothing like what a more advanced God might teach his children. 

 

 Now you are changing your reasoning, that God is that great of a teacher and so is intentionally giving us crappy bodies instead of just not being able to do it.

You are still missing or ignoring my main objection.

Drop God and let’s just look at the Council of Gods who are his teachers.

Why aren’t they helping him so he doesn’t have to use pain as a teacher so much?  Do they love the other God’s children more and don’t care they much about us so as long as our God is satisfied they don’t care about their spirit grandchildren suffering?  Why didn’t they extend God school a few centuries so the clumsy Gods have more practice before starting to tinker with sentient, feeling beings?  Why didn’t they direct their students to follow the textbook first until the student gets a better grip on the details and can manage themselves in minimizing the need for suffering?

Why are they such unfeeling, self centered beings that they only care that the process is done right for all candidates instead of just some of them like is happening in the rest of the universe when it affects them, when it’s for additional gods to join their community?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

If we find out that aliens have been to Earth, they will probably tell us that there are Gods or that there are no Gods at all. If there are no Gods, it's clear that all faiths are fake. If there is only one God and his children live on more than one world, then the LDS doctrine is more accurate than the diluted Christian doctrine. Even if we find out from aliens that there are more than one God, LDS people are even more right.

There are so many assumptions packed into there.

Why is the LDS doctrine inherently more right than other faiths just because there are humans on other worlds?  What Christian faith excludes that in their beliefs?  Their definition of God is he is the creator of all things, including any other human inhabited planets.  None of their teachings I am aware of prevent him from doing what he did here more than once as far as creation goes,

[Sara H]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why aren’t they helping him so he doesn’t have to use pain as a teacher so much?

Do the Gods still feel pain? Are they sad or disappointed when we sin?