Interplanetary Travel & The LDS's

[Calm]

3 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.

There is no official usage.  I think people are more consistent here using it the first way to avoid confusion, to show we accept a form of eternal hierarchy between the Father and all of his children who will one day become exalted and fully one with him.
 

 Usually capitals are used with names and not titles (President Jones vs Jones who is the president), so I think some use it that way, if they are thinking of Christ or Heavenly Father, they may use their name “God” and all others they talk about are nameless so get little g’s.

Others use capitals to show hierarchy as in the first case.

I am using God in Sara’s thought experiment to signify each of the creators as they are God the Father and God the Son to their children, but normally I only use capitals for our Father and his Son…though I believe the teachings that we will share in all things of God through his goodness and become like him, so I personally wonder if eventually the hierarchy fades away as unimportant and not needed in God’s view.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Sara H said:

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

Do Gods feel love?  Are they compassionate or sympathetic when their creations suffer? 

Can you please focus on answering the question rather than going off on another rabbit trail?  I have been asking this since you started your first thread, I believe, and you haven’t answered it yet.

[Sara H]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do Gods feel love?  Are they compassionate or sympathetic when their creations suffer

This is easy. Without pain, love would mean nothing.  

Gods feel love therefore they feel pain.

 

Edited August 12 by Sara H

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Without pain, love would mean nothing.  

Why?  One of my kids was the easiest and healthiest being in the world to care for.  Everyone adored him according to what they told me.  He was sweet, friendly, intelligent (very intelligent), so kind, generous.  The other not so much in the easy department though still fun to be around and so adorable, just demanding and her health was complicated from the womb.  My love for my son is as intense and joyful as my love for my daughter.  The first ten years of my marriage was relatively complication free in comparison to now and to what I saw others going through.  We had a lot of fun during those years and lots of opportunities to show each other love, for our love to grow and to share it with others.  Once things got more complicated, we have had much less opportunities to go out and have fun and just spend the time being in love with each other and in love with the world.

Edited August 12 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Gods feel love therefore they feel pain.

That does not address my question, whether or not they feel pain is irrelevant.  It only matters if they love humanity.

You say they do in your thought experiment.

So why are these loving and compassionate gods allowing a creator God to put his children through unnecessary pain and suffering?  

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

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. 

Boot camp is for enlisted personnel. Generally admirals started out with officer training though there are exceptions.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

I think the general authorities would hesitate to suggest that there is any official theology or eschatology on God vs god in terms of exaltation.  I don't think most Latter-day Saints give much consideration to the difference between god vs God.  I think most Latter-day Saints consider exaltation to mean that we become a Heavenly Father/God of souls we create - one in glory, power, authority, etc. with Him/Them.  To our heavenly posterity, we will be their Father/God.  It is simply the heavenly version of a mortal family. 

I personally don't see any need to defend against accusations of polytheism.  I consider myself a polytheist in the sense that I believe in and worship plural capital G Gods.  I also believe that there are other God's that I don't know or worship, bt exist, who are not God's to me.  I think that is the predominant belief in Mormonism.  

Quote

Mormons, more properly referred to as Latter-day Saints or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

https://faq.churchofjesuschrist.org/who-do-mormons-worship#:~:text=Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ by remembering and reverencing,striving to follow His commandments.

Some Latter-day Saints may try to maintain that they are monotheists by defining "God" in a way that encompasses the plurality of beings that we worship.   They are one but many - a social version of the trinity.   I personally am not offended or find it problematic to use the word "polytheist", however.   It's all semantics and changes nothing. 

To say that I aspire to be a God could easily be misconstrued and misunderstood.  What I aspire for is eternal family and the greatest eternal happiness.  I am told that exaltation provides that, so I guess I aspire to be an Eternal Father of children - that sounds like a good definition of "God" to me.    I have always thought of exaltation in a capital G way, but whether or not that type of Father is a capital G God or a lower case g god makes no difference to me.

Father = eternal and immortal Father of souls 

father = mortal father of mortal bodies. 

Perhaps there is some kind of parallel in god vs God.  I have always understood the god's mentioned in the Bible to be mortals - "ye are gods".  I don't know. 

 

 

Edited August 12 by pogi

[Thinking]

This discussion reminds me of the song "Come Sail Away" by Styx.

Here is part of the lyrics.

A gathering of angels
Appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope
And this is what they said, they said
Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me...

I thought that they were angels
But to my surprise
We climbed aboard their starship
We headed for the skies, singing
Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me...

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

That does not address my question, whether or not they feel pain is irrelevant.  It only matters if they love humanity.

You say they do in your thought experiment.

So why are these loving and compassionate gods allowing a creator God to put his children through unnecessary pain and suffering?  

Emotional spectrum that our intelligence uses as software to run our mortal brains and move our mortal bodies is everlasting, just like our intelligence itself. Some people will get off the sofa and start exercising if they want to lose weight because being overweight makes them unhappy. When you're in love, you want to be as near to the object of your affection as humanly possible. Most people, when confronted by something they dread, will try to go as far away from it as possible. My point is that feeling love and pleasure requires feeling other emotions as well, including fear and grief. It's built into our everlasting operating system, our intelligence. There's no such thing as immaterial matter, our spirit is an organized intelligence, and our emotions, the happy and the sad ones, are part of who we eternally are.

 

So you're saying that all you desire from God in this life is love and kindness? Doesn't our teaching tell us that life on earth is a trial? If we just feel positive without negative emotions, we won't be put to the test in any meaningful way. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13 by Sara H

[Sara H]

On 8/11/2023 at 6:36 PM, 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?

A happy and normal mortal life includes pain and suffering. So does eternal progression. 

Edited August 13 by Sara H

[Sara H]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

Every Christian I've talked to believes that we are born via the lineage of Adam and Eve, and that we are a sinful people because we inherited Adam's propensity for sin. This is one of the central tenets of Christianity. If extraterrestrials arrive on Earth and they have a human nature and DNA similar to ours, then Christians are incorrect in their beliefs. According to what Brigham Young remarked, every earth has its tempter, and every earth has its redeemer. So I would say it's likely every earth also has its Adam and Eve, If this is the case, then the LDS interpretation of Christianity is substantially more accurate than the watered-down version that the vast majority of Christians adhere to. Remember that our theology and our objective as Latter-day Saints is to restore the genuine form of Christianity to the earth, as well as to establish and uphold a gospel that is still alive, so that Christ can come again. 

 

It doesn't matter if the aliens are atheist or not; all we need to do is collect a sample of their DNA, and if it's the same or close to ours, that at least confirms our numerous earth's with God's children theory true. If aliens have a totally different DNA, then Brigham was incorrect along with Christianity and George Lucas was smarter than Joseph Smith. 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

47 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Every Christian I've talked to believes that we are born via the lineage of Adam and Eve, and that we are a sinful people because we inherited Adam's propensity for sin. This is one of the central tenets of Christianity. If extraterrestrials arrive on Earth and they have a human nature and DNA similar to ours, then Christians are incorrect in their beliefs. According to what Brigham Young remarked, every earth has its tempter, and every earth has its redeemer. So I would say it's likely every earth also has its Adam and Eve, If this is the case, then the LDS interpretation of Christianity is substantially more accurate than the watered-down version that the vast majority of Christians adhere to. Remember that our theology and our objective as Latter-day Saints is to restore the genuine form of Christianity to the earth, as well as to establish and uphold a gospel that is still alive, so that Christ can come again. 

 

It doesn't matter if the aliens are atheist or not; all we need to do is collect a sample of their DNA, and if it's the same or close to ours, that at least confirms our numerous earth's with God's children theory true. If aliens have a totally different DNA, then Brigham was incorrect along with Christianity and George Lucas was smarter than Joseph Smith. 

 

 

 

I would kindly suggest that your core premise may be somewhat off base. First, not all Christians believe in original sin inherited from Adam. Among those who do, there are varying interpretations, beliefs, doctrines, and understandings about "original sin." So, even those who believe in the idea of "original sin" hold varying ideas about what that means and what its impact is on humans as they live their lives. Christianity is a wide and vast community, with many differing core beliefs and nuances of thought when it comes to those beliefs. Literal birth via the lineage of Adam and Even? Once again lots of differences in Christendom about the nature, existence, and impact of Adam and Eve. You are implying a homogeneity of thought where it does not exist. My premise is that the same thing is true among the LDS. There are wide ranges of belief among the LDS as is evidenced on this forum. Attend any MHA conference and you will find a similarly wide diversity of interpretations of their LDS faith.

Please do not eliminate the idea from your thinking that it is quite likely that each of us on this forum who name Christ as Savior share the same objective as Christians to "restore and live the genuine form of Christianity to the earth, as well as to establish and uphold a gospel that is still alive, so that Christ can come again." As a Christian I must constantly focus on restoring my faith and the orthopraxy of my life, not because I have inherited sin from Adam and Eve, but because I Navidad as an individual human am sinful. Both psychologically, spiritually, and perhaps even physiologically as a human I have a need to protect and defend all that makes me-me. That alone makes me selfish, struggling to be selfless.

Oh, and Christians who disagree with me aren't really "watered down." They simply belief different from me about certain things. It is important that I receive those differences and honor them in their own Christian walk and journey without negating or demeaning their own journey. After all - the joys of the journey into the unknown are the unknown joys of the journey! I experience joy as I learn from those whose journey is different than mine, whose beliefs are unknown to me prior to my walking with them on at least part of their journey.  I don't have to agree to experience growth and joy as others share their faith journeys with me. All I have to do is receive their journey and ponder on what there is in their journey that might make me a better person and Christian. Take care. 

[Sara H]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would kindly suggest that your core premise may be somewhat off base. First, not all Christians believe in original sin inherited from Adam. Among those who do, there are varying interpretations, beliefs, doctrines, and understandings about "original sin." So, even those who believe in the idea of "original sin" hold varying ideas about what that means and what its impact is on humans as they live their lives. Christianity is a wide and vast community, with many differing core beliefs and nuances of thought when it comes to those beliefs. Literal birth via the lineage of Adam and Even? Once again lots of differences in Christendom about the nature, existence, and impact of Adam and Eve. You are implying a homogeneity of thought where it does not exist. My premise is that the same thing is true among the LDS. There are wide ranges of belief among the LDS as is evidenced on this forum. Attend any MHA conference and you will find a similarly wide diversity of interpretations of their LDS faith.

Please do not eliminate the idea from your thinking that it is quite likely that each of us on this forum who name Christ as Savior share the same objective as Christians to "restore and live the genuine form of Christianity to the earth, as well as to establish and uphold a gospel that is still alive, so that Christ can come again." As a Christian I must constantly focus on restoring my faith and the orthopraxy of my life, not because I have inherited sin from Adam and Eve, but because I Navidad as an individual human am sinful. Both psychologically, spiritually, and perhaps even physiologically as a human I have a need to protect and defend all that makes me-me. That alone makes me selfish, struggling to be selfless.

Oh, and Christians who disagree with me aren't really "watered down." They simply belief different from me about certain things. It is important that I receive those differences and honor them in their own Christian walk and journey without negating or demeaning their own journey. After all - the joys of the journey into the unknown are the unknown joys of the journey! I experience joy as I learn from those whose journey is different than mine, whose beliefs are unknown to me prior to my walking with them on at least part of their journey.  I don't have to agree to experience growth and joy as others share their faith journeys with me. All I have to do is receive their journey and ponder on what there is in their journey that might make me a better person and Christian. Take care. 

Thanks for posting.  I just started a new thread and it explains a lot of what you just talked about in this post. At least to how LDS view Christianity outside of our church. 

Edited August 13 by Sara H

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

So you're saying that all you desire from God in this life is love and kindness? Doesn't our teaching tell us that life on earth is a trial? If we just feel positive without negative emotions, we won't be put to the test in any meaningful way. 

No, I am not saying that.  I said eliminate unnecessary suffering, not necessary suffering.  Are you saying all our suffering is necessary?

So all these mortals from advanced worlds with better organized bodies made by more advanced Gods aren’t being put to the test in a meaningful way?  Somehow I don’t think that is where you were intending to take your original premise, which you appear to have lost track of.

Again you avoided answering my question…what you said above has nothing to do with my question and it seems not much to do with your thought experiment.  Remember how those advanced humans were living for 2000 years?  From your opening post:

Quote

 If they are able to go in a spacecraft, penetrate our atmosphere, then there is a good likelihood that the God they follow is probably further along the path of eternal progression than our God. Perhaps the extraterrestrial will be green, or perhaps it will be blue. Who knows? But if they are able to do so, then there is a good chance that their God will be more advanced than our God. 

I also believe that if we discover that extraterrestrials have visited our planet, there is a really good chance that we will discover that many of the people mentioned in the Bible who lived to be between 600 and 1000 years old were probably the spirit children of another God who came to earth to assist our God in establishing his everlasting gospel. This is something I believe will be the case if we discover that extraterrestrials have visited us. They were able to live for such a long time because the DNA of their god was more evolved than the DNA of our god, which gave them the ability to live for a longer period of time.  

If the more advanced Gods are putting out worlds with better bodies inhabiting them, originally it would seem that it is the preferred method of setting up mortality and we missed out because our God isn’t as good at creation yet.  And our grandparent gods don’t care enough about us mortals to be sure we have the same advantages.  My question has always been why they lack compassion.  Unless you are now changing your game and it’s those of us with less durable bodies who have it good and our God is actually smarter to give us what we need most.

Edited August 13 by Calm

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

It doesn't matter if the aliens are atheist or not; all we need to do is collect a sample of their DNA, and if it's the same or close to ours, that at least confirms our numerous earth's with God's children theory true. If aliens have a totally different DNA, then Brigham was incorrect along with Christianity and George Lucas was smarter than Joseph Smith. 

I don't see how the DNA of aliens would prove or disprove Brigham or the rest of Christianity.  I don't expect my mortal body DNA to have any relationship with my immortal body DNA.  There's a lot of stuff in the DNA that make no sense for a perfected being to have.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would kindly suggest that your core premise may be somewhat off base. First, not all Christians believe in original sin inherited from Adam. Among those who do, there are varying interpretations, beliefs, doctrines, and understandings about "original sin." So, even those who believe in the idea of "original sin" hold varying ideas about what that means and what its impact is on humans as they live their lives. Christianity is a wide and vast community, with many differing core beliefs and nuances of thought when it comes to those beliefs. Literal birth via the lineage of Adam and Even? Once again lots of differences in Christendom about the nature, existence, and impact of Adam and Eve. You are implying a homogeneity of thought where it does not exist.

My own experiences are fairly unanimous; they evidence that your kind criticism of @Sara H's position may be the thing that is off base.  US Christianity may not have an absolute homogeneity regarding original sin but I assert there is an effective homogeneity. When Sara says...

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Every Christian I've talked to believes that we are born via the lineage of Adam and Eve, and that we are a sinful people because we inherited Adam's propensity for sin. This is one of the central tenets of Christianity.

...this absolutely and consistently aligns with what I was taught. It is what I heard from Sister Philip Michael in Catholic school and Reverend Fraley in Methodist VBS. I heard it at Jack Van Impe crusades, at Dranesville bible camp, at Fishnet and at my Baptist church. It was a particularly consistent doctrine and prior to my initiation into LDS doctrine, I hadn't heard the Christian origin story taught otherwise.

To better qualify this discussion I will clarify that I am offering wholly anecdotal experiences and presenting them against what is - objectively & importantly - a well qualified position. That said, it is not your broad attestation about variety within Christian origin teaching that I am debating. I am contending that what Sara presented is especially pervasive in US Christianity. I am fairly certain that if we were to visit 100 churches of the top US Christian denominations, we would hear Sara's original sin story taught in ~all of them.

[MiserereNobis]

Pope Francis said if Martians landed on earth he would preach to them and baptize them. The Great Commission knows no boundaries. 

[Calm]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:43 AM, Calm said:

If the more advanced Gods are putting out worlds with better bodies inhabiting them, originally it would seem that it is the preferred method of setting up mortality and we missed out because our God isn’t as good at creation yet.  And our grandparent gods don’t care enough about us mortals to be sure we have the same advantages.  My question has always been why they lack compassion.  Unless you are now changing your game and it’s those of us with less durable bodies who have it good and our God is actually smarter to give us what we need most.

@Sara H
Can you please address questions on your older threads before completely jumping off to new controversies?  It makes you appear insincere in your reasons for choosing these topics.

[ksfisher]

On 8/13/2023 at 1:39 AM, Thinking said:

This discussion reminds me of the song "Come Sail Away" by Styx.

Here is part of the lyrics.

A gathering of angels
Appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope
And this is what they said, they said
Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me...

I thought that they were angels
But to my surprise
We climbed aboard their starship
We headed for the skies, singing
Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me...

Are you putting forth the proposition that we could reach other planets if we could develop a Dennis DeYoung vocals powered rocket engine?

[ksfisher]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:50 AM, Sara H said:

and George Lucas was smarter than Joseph Smith. 

George Lucas gave us Jar Jar Binks.  George Lucas is not smarter than anyone.

[Sara H]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

@Sara H
Can you please address questions on your older threads before completely jumping off to new controversies?  It makes you appear insincere in your reasons for choosing these topics.

If my counting is somewhat correct, I have contributed to this thread about 19 times, which accounts for around 20% of the total posts. You have contributed approximately 24 posts, which accounts for approximately 28% of the total post length or nearly one page. That is for a board that consists of 23,000 individuals. I believe that I am doing an adequate job of maintaining my threads. 

 

In terms of responding to each and every one of your questions. If you're going to complain that I didn't answer each and every one of your questions, maybe you shouldn't ask quite so many of them in the first place. I am unable to devote my full attention to the board 24/7 like some of the more regular members. I don't mind answering, but if you're going to call me out on the board rather than in private, then I'm going to have to put you on ignore because you said that I'm attempting to generate a controversy. I believe the threads I've started have been engaging, and I do my best to bring up subjects that are entertaining to discuss and encourage people to think creatively outside the box. So far, every one of my threads can paint the church in a positive light if argued correctly. 

 

Edited August 14 by Sara H

[InCognitus]

24 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I believe the threads I've started have been engaging

But, the point that Calm makes is that you start a thread, and when you are asked in that thread to back up some of the things you say (like I what I asked you here), you then ignore the questions and ignore prior thread completely and start a new thread so as to "engage" in a different direction (and it appears to be a diversion).  I agree with Calm's perception.

[Sara H]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But, the point that Calm makes is that you start a thread, and when you are asked in that thread to back up some of the things you say (like I what I asked you here), you then ignore the questions and ignore prior thread completely and start a new thread so as to "engage" in a different direction (and it appears to be a diversion).  I agree with Calm's perception.

This is my twentieth post on this thread. Almost a full page of post for a thread that's four pages. Your perception is incorrect. 

[Sara H]

I just now stopped by Calm's page, and I noticed that she is very close to reaching 80,000 posts! I don't feel horrible at all about the fact that I didn't answer each and every one of her inquiries. I'll make posts to my topics whenever I feel it's necessary. It should be quite clear to anyone who possesses even a modicum of common sense that I am not attempting to incite controversy; if that were the case, I would be posting on topics that were started by other users. I don't think I've ever contributed to a discussion that I didn't start myself. Possibly, but only a handful of times. 

I can't believe I'm discussing this on my own thread.

[InCognitus]

36 minutes ago, Sara H said:

This is my twentieth post on this thread. Almost a full page of post for a thread that's four pages. Your perception is incorrect. 

Uh, this has nothing to do with how many posts you make, it's about responding to questions asked of you relative to the things you say in your posts.  If you make ten thousand posts and never respond to the questions raised by your topics, then it completely supports the perception that you are not sincere in your questions and topics, and are merely trying to stir up controversy. 

Edited August 14 by InCognitus