The origin of sinners

[tana]

As manol pointed out, New Age Theory (NAT) has a bit of a bad rep. Prob. due to people like Ramtha. But, sometimes it has it's uses. Like, if I want to align LDS doctrine with my theories I would focus in on the point that eternal punishment may not actually be forever. Played all the way out then, that would seem to mean the C. K. is going to need to be a very big place because everyone must eventually make it.

 

Heck, a person can even use NAT to fix up Physicalism Theory. (PT)  PT theory says that matter is all there is. Consciousness is illusion. A byproduct of particles bouncing around. When the particles disperse, the consciousness is gone. But, if particles are eternal, and how could they not be, how could there ever be a moment or a time, in eternity, when particles had not yet organized to the point of creating  consciousness?

 

Therefore, consciousness is just as primary as particles. You cannot have one without the other. This still doesn't do us any good yet because the soul still dies with the particles. But, and it's a big but, If the persons unique energy pattern could be recorded and retained, like, at the sub-atomic level, and survive big bangs and big crunches. A billion years from now Joe Montana is throwing passes again on say, Alderaan III. And none the wiser for it. When Picard goes thru the transporter, are his particles transported or is it just the information that gets sent?

 

Also, Joe didn't spend any time in some sort of fuzzy spirit land when he is between bodies. That's fine. And, this still doesn't get us a soul that separates from the body and goes to the spirit realm. That's fine too. If God/the person in charge wants to he can just reconstitute the person, say Dantana *, with a different phase/vibration so that he isn't in sync with mortal land. Viola - spirit land.

 

* The soul needs particles to exist in form and move about - represent themselves as separate from the one. Think, 'more fine matter' spirit body, But it isn't reliant on mindless particles bouncing around to have their awareness, because at it's core, gods mind cannot consist of a mechanical system.

 

*This helps me with the concept of an endless heaven with an indestructible body. An indestructible body doesn't need to eat, doesn't need to breath, etc.

*Can science currently write code at the sub-atomic level? Write code? - not yet. Record code? - yes ... Rabbit hole.

* How can the memories follow the person thru the reconstitutions? I don't know. Write/record some more code I guess.

 

* Tana wants his name changed to Dantana as Tana is his old self. His pleas tho thru the 'contact us' button so far haven't worked.

Edited November 26, 2024 by tana

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, tana said:

As manol pointed out, New Age Theory (NAT) has a bit of a bad rep. Prob. due to people like Ramtha. But, sometimes it has it's uses. Like, if I want to align LDS doctrine with my theories I would focus in on the point that eternal punishment may not actually be forever. Played all the way out then, that would seem to mean the C. K. is going to need to be a very big place because everyone must eventually make it.

While I personally reject most of your conclusions, the bold section is indeed supported by revelation.

D&C 19
6. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

 

[tana]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

While I personally reject most of your conclusions, the bold section is indeed supported by revelation.

D&C 19
6. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

 

I don't think it's that useless Nofear. If one just takes it for what it is, an unsophisticated attempt to refute classic physicalism by using it's own game against it.  If one wants to find an explanation for the meaning of existence using only mechanical principles and not any sort of spiritualism, then this is an idea or concept for a starting point. Physicalism/materialism/naturalism proponents have no time for spirit theory. So, throw in an advanced being, spaceman guy who has figured out how to encode energy patterns on the universe and there you go - LDS God.

When I refer to classic physicalism I mean the theory that particles are all there is. Mindless matter pieces bouncing around create the illusion of something called consciousness, awareness, spirit, soul. etc.

Edited November 26, 2024 by tana

[webbles]

5 hours ago, tana said:

But, if particles are eternal, and how could they not be, how could there ever be a moment or a time, in eternity, when particles had not yet organized to the point of creating  consciousness?

If you are talking about subatomic particles, they aren't eternal.  They can be annihilated or decayed.  The Casimir effect also makes "virtual particles" come into existence in a vacuum.  The Feynman diagrams are heavily used to be able to track what happens when particles collide and what is expected to come out.  For example, if an electron and a positron collide, we get a quark, an anti-quark, and a gluon at the end.  The energy, mass, etc stay the same but the particles are different.

[manol]

6 hours ago, tana said:

As manol pointed out, New Age Theory (NAT) has a bit of a bad rep.

Must confess I don't know what "New Age Theory" is.  

I find ideas that ring true for me coming from "the mouths of two or more witnesses", some of which are non-LDS, and some of which arguably could fall into the category of "that which God does now reveal"... which category is of course an LDS concept.   

 

6 hours ago, tana said:

... if I want to align LDS doctrine with my theories I would focus in on the point that eternal punishment may not actually be forever. Played all the way out then, that would seem to mean the C. K. is going to need to be a very big place because everyone must eventually make it.

And that's one of the ideas which rings true for me.  I think the lower kingdoms, including the one we are in right now, can be seen as stages in something called "eternal progression". 

Edited November 26, 2024 by manol

[tana]

Simply, real simply,

 

 New Age theory: A self appointed guru take a mishmash of eastern philosophy, Idealism and quantum physics and tells people how to manifest wealth unto themselves. The only wealth manifested tho is into the gurus pocket.

 

Physicalism: Science based platform that says matter is primary and the phenomenon of consciousness is it's creation.

 

Idealism: Spiritual based belief that consciousness/spirit/soul/God are primary and not a construct of particles.

 

Why is there something rather than nothing: A book that  my dad once read and reported that afterward he was none the wiser.

 

Some say matter/particles came first. Some say mind/God came first. I say neither came first as there can be no timeline in an eternal system. There can be no grand opening where particles now have their first human. There can be no open house where God shows off his first dinosaur build. That's it. That's all.

 

I don't think that particles showing up uninvited in a vacuum kills this deal. Me opining further on that would only prove my ignorance on the subject tho...as it would be something like; Where did they come from, did they pop into existence from non-existence, how can that be.

Edited November 27, 2024 by tana

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, tana said:

New Age theory: A self appointed guru take a mishmash of eastern philosophy, Idealism and quantum physics a tells people how to manifest wealth unto themselves. The only wealth manifested tho is into the gurus pocket.

It could also be health, mental or physical in my experience.  Basically any self improvement topic.  
 

A lot of New Age stuff is “woo” or “woo-woo”, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Tries to marry hard science and mysticism.

Quantum physics seems a very popular target.

Some of the vibration stuff really annoys me.  Claims that higher vibrations are more spiritual….which would make violet light more spiritual and pure and “good” than red when it is just light.  Not good, not bad.  Just is. Can’t remember the reasoning or the names to refresh my memory as it’s been over a decade or so at least, do remember the frustration of Mom being attracted to that stuff (thankfully she preferred more grounded work mostly, but friends and Oprah had her buying stuff that sounded interesting), but the books I researched for my mom making those claims were quite good at making jumps in conclusions when they shouldn’t have.  Olympic pole vaulting quality.

Not trashing all vibration comments as unscientific.  Everything in the universe does vibrate after all. Vibrations interacting, influencing…depending on how it’s framed can be accurate.   Or it can be woo.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[tana]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

It could also be health, mental or physical in my experience.  Basically any self improvement topic.  
 

A lot of New Age stuff is “woo” or “woo-woo”, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Tries to marry hard science and mysticism.

Quantum physics seems a very popular target.

Some of the vibration stuff really annoys me.  Claims that higher vibrations are more spiritual….which would make violet light more spiritual and pure and “good” than red when it is just light.  Not good, not bad.  Just is. Can’t remember the reasoning or the names to refresh my memory as it’s been over a decade or so at least, do remember the frustration of Mom being attracted to that stuff (thankfully she preferred more grounded work mostly, but friends and Oprah had her buying stuff that sounded interesting), but the books I researched for my mom making those claims were quite good at making jumps in conclusions when they shouldn’t have.  Olympic pole vaulting quality.

Not trashing all vibration comments as unscientific.  Everything in the universe does vibrate after all. Vibrations interacting, influencing…depending on how it’s framed can be accurate.   Or it can be woo.

Well said Calm!

Not to critique anyone for their discussing of Quantum mechanics but,  I learned my lesson on that a few years ago on another forum. Since my knowledge of Q is from my New Age years in the early 00's, when a poster by the name of Physics Guy showed up it became quickly clear I need to keep my mouth shut. He is basically Tarski reincarnated with an Idealism worldview. I invited him over here but he hasn't showed up yet.

[Nofear]

23 hours ago, tana said:

Physicalism/materialism/naturalism proponents have no time for spirit theory.

One of the main conceits and potential pitfalls of materialism is that our current understanding of matter is sufficient to explain reality, at least once we get a better hold of it. But, a rational materialism does not require that conceit. Indeed, if one has an understanding of cosmology, we really only have an understanding of 5% of the constituents of the universe. That we don't know much about 95% of the universe means we might need some metaphysics until we get to the point of falsifiable, and hence potentially scientific, ideas. But, I personally see little need to go woo-woo.

[tana]

22 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of the main conceits and potential pitfalls of materialism is that our current understanding of matter is sufficient to explain reality, at least once we get a better hold of it. But, a rational materialism does not require that conceit. Indeed, if one has an understanding of cosmology, we really only have an understanding of 5% of the constituents of the universe. That we don't know much about 95% of the universe means we might need some metaphysics until we get to the point of falsifiable, and hence potentially scientific, ideas. But, I personally see little need to go woo-woo.

That's why I suggest that it is only science fiction and not science fantasy as to an advanced spaceman, who knows all there is to know about the way of particles and forces, being able to record specific entity energy patterns at the sub-atomic level, make that record safe, reconstitute beings at will.  I say it's a win win. Woo woo gets the trash bin, Idealists get their eternal soul, Materialists keep their physics untarnished.

[Calm]

On 11/26/2024 at 7:01 PM, tana said:

Not to critique anyone for their discussing of Quantum mechanics but,  I learned my lesson on that a few years ago on another forum. Since my knowledge of Q is from my New Age years in the early 00's, when a poster by the name of Physics Guy showed up it became quickly clear I need to keep my mouth shut.

Yes, I try to keep my discussions basic so I don’t embarrass myself as my days where my career plan was “astrophysicist” are long gone (unfortunately in some ways I listened to the wrong career advice, but also met my husband because of my career change to psychology…and my health has meant I never was able to have a career…still I would have had a lot more fun getting a physics degree, I think, even if the psychology one has been very beneficial in my life).

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, tana said:

That's why I suggest that it is only science fiction and not science fantasy as to an advanced spaceman, who knows all there is to know about the way of particles and forces, being able to record specific entity energy patterns at the sub-atomic level, make that record safe, reconstitute beings at will.  I say it's a win win. Woo woo gets the trash bin, Idealists get their eternal soul, Materialists keep their physics untarnished.

 /sigh Or, as others might put it, "Our psychic frequencies are not in resonance."

Edited November 28, 2024 by Nofear

[tana]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

 /sigh Or, as others might put it, "Our psychic frequencies are not in resonance."

Yeah. I get that I didn't respond to your previous post with a similar substance. I had nothing of substance to say at that time.

[let’s roll]

LDS theology includes the principle that spiritual truths are best understood with the Spirit and that God has promised to impart wisdom to anyone who asks with the requisite intent.  Do you acknowledge the availability of Divine assistance in trying to understand and articulate eternal principles?  

If so, what has been your experience in your efforts to seek such assistance?

If not, please understand that while LDS may engage in discussing how the philosophies of men might be used to understand the mind and will of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, perfectly charitable God, they likely do so with the understanding that such philosophies lack necessary context and depth and thus are a largely ineffective tool to understand the Divine.

Additionally, LDS theology itself includes only what God has, to date, revealed which includes the principle that God will continue to reveal things going forward.  And one can share the words that have been revealed but, as noted above, understanding the meaning is a spiritual endeavor.

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by let’s roll

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

If so, what has been your experience in your efforts to seek such assistance?

While it is possible, even encouraged, to learn many truths that extend beyond the corpus of revealed truths by the revelators of the Church, but, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others of such. That's not to say one can't share learned things (sometimes, depends) but one may not represent them as revealed truth. Were one to do so it would betray the confidence given him or her and future revelation would be witheld.

Edited November 29, 2024 by Nofear

[tana]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

While it is possible, even encouraged, to learn many truths that extend beyond the corpus of revealed truths by the revelators of the Church, but, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others of such. That's not to say one can't share learned things (sometimes, depends) but one may not represent them as revealed truth. Were one to do so it would betray the confidence given him or her and future revelation would be witheld.

Well, at first I thought I was being dissed on with a 'pearls before swine' admonishment for 'let's roll'. Then I thought, nah, he's just counseling let's roll that he's wasting his time on a 'Moroni's promise' with tana. Nah, that's not it either. I didn't see anything wrong with the post so, I'm not sure what you're up to on this one Nofear.

[Autonomous]

The problem of evil is why I (and many others) are atheist.  

I do not think the problem of evil can be sidestepped by theories like panspermia or the notion of an eternal, uncreated universe. Such ideas might shift the question of origins, but they leave untouched the deeper issues of moral and experiential inequality. Evil isn't merely about its existence; it's about its persistence—how it embeds itself in systems and circumstances beyond individual control. Unequal access to opportunities, shaped by culture, geography, and upbringing, highlights the constrained nature of human agency. A person born into privilege has vastly different choices compared to someone born into hardship, and neither can simply "choose" the other's path. I have not yet found a theological explanation that satisfactorily confronts and justifies the problem of evil, nor group who is able to confront the tangible injustices that perpetuate suffering in the here and now.

[manol]

16 hours ago, Nofear said:

While it is possible, even encouraged, to learn many truths that extend beyond the corpus of revealed truths by the revelators of the Church, but, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others of such.

It seems to me that, by this line of reasoning, it would be "inappropriate" for a member of the Church to learn "truth" from anyone other than "the revelators of the Church".  Is this correct?

And if so, then doesn't that value the technicality of "who said it" over the actual revealed truth itself? 

Do you have a source for this part:  "but, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others of such"?  Is that an actual Church doctrine or teaching, or is it a cultural or individual belief? 

 

Edited November 29, 2024 by manol

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, manol said:

It seems to me that, by this line of reasoning, it would be "inappropriate" for a member of the Church to learn "truth" from anyone other than "the revelators of the Church".  Is this correct?

That is not correct. I simply assert that one cannot and should not claim that their understanding in true because God revealed it to them for things that have not entered public discourse by the designated authorities to do so (the Revelators of the Church).
Saying, "God told me the Book of Mormon is true," is perfectly fine.
Saying, "God has revealed to me that the Mesoamerican Model of the Book of Mormon is the correct one," is not. Nevertheless, one can advocate for what they believe by reason and public evidence.

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him." Alma 12:9

Edited November 29, 2024 by Nofear

[manol]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

That is not correct. I simply assert that one cannot and should not claim that their understanding in true because God revealed it to them for things that have not entered public discourse by the designated authorities to do so (the Revelators of the Church).
Saying, "God told me the Book of Mormon is true," is perfectly fine.
Saying, "God has revealed to me that the Mesoamerican Model of the Book of Mormon is the correct one," is not. Nevertheless, one can advocate for what they believe by reason and public evidence.

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him." Alma 12:9

Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for providing a source.  I appreciate your going to that effort very much. 

It now sounds like to me like you are saying that learning is not inappropriate, but that framing what you learned in terms which make it sound like God (or the Holy Spirit?) revealed something to you would be inappropriate.

Is this correct?  

[Nofear]

If one is publically claiming revelation beyond what is “public”, that is not inappropriate.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

If one is publically claiming revelation beyond what is “public”, that is not inappropriate.

Okay, so public claims of being the recipient of revelation are inappropriate.  Got it.

I assume you're familiar with this statement: 

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” - Joseph Smith

What should a member of the LDS Church do with truth they receive from a source other than "the revelators of the church"?

 

Edited November 29, 2024 by manol

[Nofear]

42 minutes ago, manol said:

I assume you're familiar with this statement: 

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” - Joseph Smith

I am, and it is a great quote that I fully endorse.

42 minutes ago, manol said:

What should a member of the LDS Church do with truth they received from a source other than "the revelators of the church"?

Rejoice and be glad. If the only truth one learns is from the Church, one isn't doing it right.

Edited November 29, 2024 by Nofear

[manol]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Rejoice and be glad.  If the only truth one learns is from the Church, one isn't doing it right.

Thanks again for replying, and I agree with you. 

How do you feel about members posting about such on a forum like this one?  

 

Edit:  I may have completely misunderstood you!  Quoting you again: 

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

If one is publically claiming revelation beyond what is “public”, that is not inappropriate.

Do you mean that publicly claiming revelation IS inappropriate, or IS NOT inappropriate?   I skipped over the word "not" the first time through; I'm now guessing that it was a typo but want to be sure.  Sorry I'm so dense! 

Edited November 30, 2024 by manol

[tana]

8 hours ago, Autonomous said:

The problem of evil is why I (and many others) are atheist.  

I do not think the problem of evil can be sidestepped by theories like panspermia or the notion of an eternal, uncreated universe. Such ideas might shift the question of origins, but they leave untouched the deeper issues of moral and experiential inequality. Evil isn't merely about its existence; it's about its persistence—how it embeds itself in systems and circumstances beyond individual control. Unequal access to opportunities, shaped by culture, geography, and upbringing, highlights the constrained nature of human agency. A person born into privilege has vastly different choices compared to someone born into hardship, and neither can simply "choose" the other's path. I have not yet found a theological explanation that satisfactorily confronts and justifies the problem of evil, nor group who is able to confront the tangible injustices that perpetuate suffering in the here and now.

Welcome to the board Autonomous. Thank you for the excellent post. So, along those lines, if this really is a testing station, the whole thing just seems so cluttered up and low quality. I mean, if one really wants to figure out the true nature of the souls hard wiring, is the carrot and the stick the best way to go about it? If I ever get to be in charge, I wouldn't have a veil in place, I wouldn't tell them it's a test. Let them think everyone is in. I think that would give one a better reading on the true quality of personality of the individual. Watch them when they think the aren't being watched.

Edited November 30, 2024 by tana