Infinite Intelligences?
In D&C 93:29 reads: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."
Since you can't create intelligences that implies there is a finite amount of them. However if this were true then at some point all intelligences would have received a spiritual/physical body and the promise of an eternal increase would not be valid.
Can anyone give any insight into how there can be an infinite amount of intelligences whilst at the same time no new intelligences being created?
Comments:
#1 Comment from: Gary [Visitor] · http://ndbf.blogspot.com
“Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension.... It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 25.)
#2 Comment from: Gary [Visitor] · http://ndbf.blogspot.com
Mortal man cannot comprehend things like infinity and eternity. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
“The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods [and intelligences], stretching back into the eternities, that had no beginning and will have no end. Their existence runs parallel with endless duration, and their dominions are as limitless as boundless space.” (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses For God, 1:466-467.)
“As to the beginning of the universe, that ... may be dismissed by saying that it had no beginning.” (B. H. Roberts, The Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity, 284.) So much for the Big Bang.
“Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things [or, in this case, infinite intelligences]; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension.... It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 25.)
“The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods [and intelligences], stretching back into the eternities, that had no beginning and will have no end. Their existence runs parallel with endless duration, and their dominions are as limitless as boundless space.” (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses For God, 1:466-467.)
“As to the beginning of the universe, that ... may be dismissed by saying that it had no beginning.” (B. H. Roberts, The Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity, 284.) So much for the Big Bang.
“Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things [or, in this case, infinite intelligences]; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension.... It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 25.)
#3 Comment from: Frank McIntyre [Visitor] · http://timesandseasons.org
"Since you can't create intelligences that implies there is a finite amount of them."
I don't see why this follows. We may well have just started with an uncountable number. That's hard to grasp, but then, infinite is always hard to grasp.
I don't see why this follows. We may well have just started with an uncountable number. That's hard to grasp, but then, infinite is always hard to grasp.
#4 Comment from: J. Stapley [Visitor] · http://www.splendidsun.com
I agree with what Frank stated, however, I think it is quite important to note that this, likely, does not refere to intelligences qua the mind. This revelation was given in 1833, and was well before the development of our pre-existance doctrine. I would recomend Ostler's paper in Dialogue on the development of the doctrine.
#5 Comment from: Geoff Johnston [Visitor] · http://www.newcoolthang.com
Since you can't create intelligences that implies there is a finite amount of them.
One of the unsettled questions is what "Intelligences" can be reduced to: Are they eternal as "whole cloth" intelligences or are they reducible to smaller parts (possibly something like the "particles of intelligence" Orson Pratt speculated about). If Pratt's atomism model is more accurate then perhaps "Intelligences" can be organized out of uncreated "intelligence". That would at least mean that the number of Intelligences (aka spirits) is still undefined. (Though even in that model, if there is a finite amount of intelligence-stuff then there necessarily is a finite number of intelligences that can be organized from it.)
Also, there are lots of ideas about God. BH Roberts preferred the "infinite regress of Gods" idea as illustrated by the quote Gary gave but others have preferred other models.
One of the unsettled questions is what "Intelligences" can be reduced to: Are they eternal as "whole cloth" intelligences or are they reducible to smaller parts (possibly something like the "particles of intelligence" Orson Pratt speculated about). If Pratt's atomism model is more accurate then perhaps "Intelligences" can be organized out of uncreated "intelligence". That would at least mean that the number of Intelligences (aka spirits) is still undefined. (Though even in that model, if there is a finite amount of intelligence-stuff then there necessarily is a finite number of intelligences that can be organized from it.)
Also, there are lots of ideas about God. BH Roberts preferred the "infinite regress of Gods" idea as illustrated by the quote Gary gave but others have preferred other models.
#6 Comment from: Gilgamesh [Visitor]
I have wondered about this as well. There is an anti-argument that uses the number of limited intelligences as proof that eternmal progression cannot be eternal if we will, one day, no longer be able to fulfil our "work and glory" because the intelligences have run out.
I have wondered about the eternal regression argument. Perhaps those that regress back to their base particles, may be the seeds of new intelligences spawned from those base particles that were not intelligences. Kind of like a magnet that can spread magnetism to metal that is in long term contacts, maybe we spread intelligence to non-intelligent matter by making it part of us -eating, etc... and for those that are damned to regressions, when their "individual" intelligence is reduced to its basis form, the additional material that made up that being retains the seeds of intelligence and can enter into the progression cycle with a fresh, innocent and clean start.
I have wondered about the eternal regression argument. Perhaps those that regress back to their base particles, may be the seeds of new intelligences spawned from those base particles that were not intelligences. Kind of like a magnet that can spread magnetism to metal that is in long term contacts, maybe we spread intelligence to non-intelligent matter by making it part of us -eating, etc... and for those that are damned to regressions, when their "individual" intelligence is reduced to its basis form, the additional material that made up that being retains the seeds of intelligence and can enter into the progression cycle with a fresh, innocent and clean start.
#7 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
Guys, the D&C reference is fragmented. Joseph's full exposition of this concept is in the KFD. I'll post the relevant portions here. All page numbers listed are from Ehat & Cook's Words of Joseph Smith:
Spirits:
God never had power to create the spirit of man (341)
I am dwelling on the immutibility of the spirit of man, is it logic to say the spirit of man had a beginning & yet had no end, it does not have a begining & yet had no end, it does not have a begining or end, my ring is like the Exhistanc of man it has no begining or end, if cut into their would be a begining & end, so with man if it had a begining it will have an end, if I am right I might say God never had power to create the spirit of man (346)
their Spirits coexisted with God (352)
God never had power to create the Sp of Man at all (352)
their spirits existed coequal with God (359)
God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. (360)
Intelligences:
Inteligence exist upon a self existent principle no creation about it. (341)
Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting (346)
Mind
Mind of man coequal with God himself. (341)
the mind of man is as immortal as God himself (352)
The mind of man—the intelligent part is coequal with God himself. (359)
First Principles
the first principles of man are self exist with God (352)
Spirit = Mind
all mind & spirit God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (341)
man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself (346)
I take ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the im[mor]t. Sp. Bec. It has no beging. Suppose you cut it into but as the D[evil] livees there wod. be an end all the fools & wise men from the beging. of creation who say that man had begin (352)
Mind = Intelligence
All mind that is susseptible of improvement, the relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they may be exhalted with himself (346)
Soul = Spirit
the soul the in[ne]r Spirit—of God man says created in the beging. The very idea lessens man in my idea—I don't bel. The doct (351)
Intelligence = Spirit
intelligence is self existent it is a sp. from age to end & there is no creatn abt. it (352)
Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle--is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it (360)
Soul = Mind
the soul --the mind of man--they say God created it in the beginning. The idea lessens man in my estimation. Don't believe the doctrine--know better--God told me so (359)
So for JS, a spirit is synonymous with an intelligence. They are one in the same thing, and are not created or made, neither indeed can be. So that would imply then, that we are all just as "old" as God, and that he doesn't have power to create the spirit of man at all. Abraham 3:18 reads quite well with this understanding.
I've heard individuals in Church who these views here, and mix them with the common (via Orson Pratt) view of spiritual atomism to create a mixed view of spirit origins. The Church has never really picked up on this because the KFD wasn't readily available until years, even decades, after it was transcribed. Moreover, the vast majority of the apostleship were gone on missions when JS gave this discourse, and so naturally none of them were there to hear it. JS himself indicates that the content of the eulogy was new; but he did preempt the speech by telling some of his close associates that he was going to throw it all down in a big way. Anyway, the apostles were called back to Nauvoo upon JS's death, and so they may have never heard it "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. Likewise, they didn't have doctrinal concerns upon their return, per se, because of the Syndey Rigdon and church leadership problems. At least that's my theory about why the Church has a "spirit birth" doctrine (which creates the problems listed above in this post, problems with theodicy, problems with determinism, and problems with the Fall/Redemption).
Spirits:
God never had power to create the spirit of man (341)
I am dwelling on the immutibility of the spirit of man, is it logic to say the spirit of man had a beginning & yet had no end, it does not have a begining & yet had no end, it does not have a begining or end, my ring is like the Exhistanc of man it has no begining or end, if cut into their would be a begining & end, so with man if it had a begining it will have an end, if I am right I might say God never had power to create the spirit of man (346)
their Spirits coexisted with God (352)
God never had power to create the Sp of Man at all (352)
their spirits existed coequal with God (359)
God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. (360)
Intelligences:
Inteligence exist upon a self existent principle no creation about it. (341)
Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting (346)
Mind
Mind of man coequal with God himself. (341)
the mind of man is as immortal as God himself (352)
The mind of man—the intelligent part is coequal with God himself. (359)
First Principles
the first principles of man are self exist with God (352)
Spirit = Mind
all mind & spirit God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (341)
man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself (346)
I take ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the im[mor]t. Sp. Bec. It has no beging. Suppose you cut it into but as the D[evil] livees there wod. be an end all the fools & wise men from the beging. of creation who say that man had begin (352)
Mind = Intelligence
All mind that is susseptible of improvement, the relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they may be exhalted with himself (346)
Soul = Spirit
the soul the in[ne]r Spirit—of God man says created in the beging. The very idea lessens man in my idea—I don't bel. The doct (351)
Intelligence = Spirit
intelligence is self existent it is a sp. from age to end & there is no creatn abt. it (352)
Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle--is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it (360)
Soul = Mind
the soul --the mind of man--they say God created it in the beginning. The idea lessens man in my estimation. Don't believe the doctrine--know better--God told me so (359)
So for JS, a spirit is synonymous with an intelligence. They are one in the same thing, and are not created or made, neither indeed can be. So that would imply then, that we are all just as "old" as God, and that he doesn't have power to create the spirit of man at all. Abraham 3:18 reads quite well with this understanding.
I've heard individuals in Church who these views here, and mix them with the common (via Orson Pratt) view of spiritual atomism to create a mixed view of spirit origins. The Church has never really picked up on this because the KFD wasn't readily available until years, even decades, after it was transcribed. Moreover, the vast majority of the apostleship were gone on missions when JS gave this discourse, and so naturally none of them were there to hear it. JS himself indicates that the content of the eulogy was new; but he did preempt the speech by telling some of his close associates that he was going to throw it all down in a big way. Anyway, the apostles were called back to Nauvoo upon JS's death, and so they may have never heard it "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. Likewise, they didn't have doctrinal concerns upon their return, per se, because of the Syndey Rigdon and church leadership problems. At least that's my theory about why the Church has a "spirit birth" doctrine (which creates the problems listed above in this post, problems with theodicy, problems with determinism, and problems with the Fall/Redemption).
#8 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member] 
David, while I certainly agree that Joseph thought spirit and intelligence overlapped, I'm not sure that invalidates the various tripartite views of soul - whether the B. H. Roberts view, the Orson Pratt view or others. I remain convinced that elements of it can be seen in early thought. But clearly there is a lot of ambiguity in the early texts. One wishes that more of what was taught in Navuoo, especially in the quorum of the anointed, had been recorded.
#9 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor] · http://indybooks.blogspot.com
Boyd K. Packer said at a CES fireside within the last 2 years that an intelligence is clothed in a spirit body by Heavenly parents somewhat like a spirit is clothed in a physical body by mortal parents.
To tie that in with what JS said, an intelligence is eternal, and the spirit-matter of the spirit body is eternal. But, that particular intelligence wasn't clothed in spirit-matter in the form of a spirit body until being "processed" somehow by heavenly parents. At that point, the intelligence recieved a spirit body, and became the child of those heavenly parents.
Some mockers have ridiculed the concept of exalted females being "eternally pregnant", but we have no doctrine giving the specifics of creating spirit bodies for intelligences. We just don't know how it works.
The Proclamation on the Family is the first official document that I'm aware of since correlation to assert that we have more than one heavenly parent. It specifically says "heavenly parents." Up until the Proclamation on the Family, we could say that the concept of "Mrs. God" was not official doctrine. It could only be inferred based on revelations given to us about our potential eternal destiny, and then extrapolating backward to our Heavenly Father. Now, we can't back off from there being a "Mrs. God."
To tie that in with what JS said, an intelligence is eternal, and the spirit-matter of the spirit body is eternal. But, that particular intelligence wasn't clothed in spirit-matter in the form of a spirit body until being "processed" somehow by heavenly parents. At that point, the intelligence recieved a spirit body, and became the child of those heavenly parents.
Some mockers have ridiculed the concept of exalted females being "eternally pregnant", but we have no doctrine giving the specifics of creating spirit bodies for intelligences. We just don't know how it works.
The Proclamation on the Family is the first official document that I'm aware of since correlation to assert that we have more than one heavenly parent. It specifically says "heavenly parents." Up until the Proclamation on the Family, we could say that the concept of "Mrs. God" was not official doctrine. It could only be inferred based on revelations given to us about our potential eternal destiny, and then extrapolating backward to our Heavenly Father. Now, we can't back off from there being a "Mrs. God."
#10 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
I concur that we can't comprehend eternity and infinity without being enlightened by God and having the veil withdrawn. Even in the Celestial kingdom, a device (a stone, or Urim/Thummim) will be needed to view kingdoms of a higher order, and the Earth/planet of the Celestial Kingdom will itself be a Urim/Thummim to view kingdoms of a lower order. Perhaps only the exalted ones will have the stone, and the two lower orders will not.
Given statements of ancient and modern prophets, I conclude that Elohim is the god of this universe, and not just the god of this galaxy alone. (I used to think that exalted beings had their own galaxy or group of galaxies in the universe, but now I think that's a limited viewpoint.)
I belive that what we perceive as this universe is not the totality of existance. Cosmologists have started to come to that viewpoint because if a truely infinite number of stars/galaxies have existed in this universe for a truely infinite amount of time in the past, then the night sky would be solid with stars. There would be a star/galaxy in every possible direction, and its light would have reached us given an infinite time period to get here.
As I understand it, Stephen Hawking postulated that there is a multiverse, like an infinite plane, consisting of universes sprouting off of it, but still connected, like balloons being tied to a big piece of cardboard.
I haven't read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," but I look forward to it. A reviewer says that he mentions God throughout.
Given statements of ancient and modern prophets, I conclude that Elohim is the god of this universe, and not just the god of this galaxy alone. (I used to think that exalted beings had their own galaxy or group of galaxies in the universe, but now I think that's a limited viewpoint.)
I belive that what we perceive as this universe is not the totality of existance. Cosmologists have started to come to that viewpoint because if a truely infinite number of stars/galaxies have existed in this universe for a truely infinite amount of time in the past, then the night sky would be solid with stars. There would be a star/galaxy in every possible direction, and its light would have reached us given an infinite time period to get here.
As I understand it, Stephen Hawking postulated that there is a multiverse, like an infinite plane, consisting of universes sprouting off of it, but still connected, like balloons being tied to a big piece of cardboard.
I haven't read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," but I look forward to it. A reviewer says that he mentions God throughout.
#11 Comment from: J. Stapley [Visitor] · http://www.splendidsun.com
I think it is fair to say that Christ is literally our father. This is based in scripture and is explicit. Why could not a similar covenant result in our birth with God the Father as our father?
Plenty of people, like Elder Packer, believe in the tripartite existence. The fact remains that it is not routed in the revelations or the teaching of Joseph Smith. Consequently, it is essentially tradition, though popular and unsubstantiated.
David J, quotes things very important.
But again, I think there is no evidence that the "intelligence" of section 93 refers to our souls.
Plenty of people, like Elder Packer, believe in the tripartite existence. The fact remains that it is not routed in the revelations or the teaching of Joseph Smith. Consequently, it is essentially tradition, though popular and unsubstantiated.
David J, quotes things very important.
But again, I think there is no evidence that the "intelligence" of section 93 refers to our souls.
#12 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
The idea of the multiverse was originally raised by the Russian physicist Andrei Linde. But it's become a very popular, if controverial, speculation among physicists. There are variations such as one view in M-Theory where we have multiple lower dimensional brane floating in high dimensional space.
Thus far there's no obvious way to test any of these theories.
Thus far there's no obvious way to test any of these theories.
#13 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
Boyd K. Packer said at a CES fireside within the last 2 years that an intelligence is clothed in a spirit body by Heavenly parents somewhat like a spirit is clothed in a physical body by mortal parents.
Utter hogwash. Here's the problem with that:
Who started it? Who was the first? And why is THAT being self-existing and eternal, and the others "created or made"? If all beings are "clothed in a spirit body" then there's a serious breakdown in the paradigm -- somebody, way back when, WASN'T like that.
Spirits aren't created or made, like JS said.
Utter hogwash. Here's the problem with that:
Who started it? Who was the first? And why is THAT being self-existing and eternal, and the others "created or made"? If all beings are "clothed in a spirit body" then there's a serious breakdown in the paradigm -- somebody, way back when, WASN'T like that.
Spirits aren't created or made, like JS said.
#14 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
Just to add to the discussion, one thing to keep in mind regarding intelligence is that idealism might be a possibility and an alternative to the two kinds of tripartite views popularized by Pratt and Roberts. I think that Brigham Young often appears to move in that direction at times.
#15 Comment from: El Jefe [Visitor]
I am so glad that on a subject that the Lord has failed to give us a clear understanding, we have a monumental intellectual giant like David J who can classify what the Acting President of The Twelve said as "utter hogwash".
Disagree with him as you wish, but do not place your judgment so far above his that you dismiss his views with contempt.
Disagree with him as you wish, but do not place your judgment so far above his that you dismiss his views with contempt.
#16 Comment from: Eric S. [Visitor]
The Proclamation on the Family is the first official document that I'm aware of since correlation to assert that we have more than one heavenly parent. It specifically says "heavenly parents." Up until the Proclamation on the Family, we could say that the concept of "Mrs. God" was not official doctrine. It could only be inferred based on revelations given to us about our potential eternal destiny, and then extrapolating backward to our Heavenly Father. Now, we can't back off from there being a "Mrs. God."
Interesting observation. I wonder exactly where the proclamation fits into the canonical framework of Latter-day Saint scripture. Is it on the level of the Standard Works? If so, should it not be put to the church for a sustaining vote and published with the scriptures? If not, is it considered more or less the equivalent of General Conference addresses (I would think more because it is signed by all 15 of the PSRs)? But then, is it any more authrotative for doctrine than the Hymns? We do have reference to Heavenly Mother in the hymn Oh, My Father. Are the hymns not considered official doctrine? Just wondering.
#17 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
dismiss his views with contempt
No, never, never. His fierce conservatism is really the only thing that urks me, but that's personal, not ecclesiastical. I'm sure he's aware what JS taught and how to understand it, but proliferates the Correlation view to keep people listening and to not change the direction the Church's teachings have gone. It's a lot like the serious D&C 130:22 error -- the text-criticism of that verse shows that there's a big problem as it now reads which varies greatly from the original. This was brought to the attention of the 12 in the early 1980s by an acquaintence of mine when it was discovered, and BRM, who was the contact-person, said they all knew about it, but were not going to change the scripture or the doctrine on that view so that the Church can "keep moving forward." Same with the "floating comma" of D&C 89 and the abstaining of meats in winter. If you're interested in the D&C 131 issue, it's in Lyndon Cook's The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
So many of these guys do say things when they know the history indicates otherwise.
The KFD has been enigmatic for the church because of JS's teaching like these, and again, as I indicated above, because the most of the leadership of the church was absent when he gave this speech and never picked up on it.
No, never, never. His fierce conservatism is really the only thing that urks me, but that's personal, not ecclesiastical. I'm sure he's aware what JS taught and how to understand it, but proliferates the Correlation view to keep people listening and to not change the direction the Church's teachings have gone. It's a lot like the serious D&C 130:22 error -- the text-criticism of that verse shows that there's a big problem as it now reads which varies greatly from the original. This was brought to the attention of the 12 in the early 1980s by an acquaintence of mine when it was discovered, and BRM, who was the contact-person, said they all knew about it, but were not going to change the scripture or the doctrine on that view so that the Church can "keep moving forward." Same with the "floating comma" of D&C 89 and the abstaining of meats in winter. If you're interested in the D&C 131 issue, it's in Lyndon Cook's The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
So many of these guys do say things when they know the history indicates otherwise.
The KFD has been enigmatic for the church because of JS's teaching like these, and again, as I indicated above, because the most of the leadership of the church was absent when he gave this speech and never picked up on it.
#18 Comment from: J. Stapley [Visitor] · http://www.splendidsun.com
Is it on the level of the Standard Works?
Absolutely not. I think it has about the same weight as the 1845 Proclaimation to the World.
Absolutely not. I think it has about the same weight as the 1845 Proclaimation to the World.
#19 Comment from: Daylan [Visitor]
Boom! goes my brain...
1) We either had an infinite (1a) number of Gods before our current Heavenly Father or a finite (1b) number of Gods before Him.
2) We either have an infinite (2a) amount of material/space to live in and use or a finite (2b) amount.
3) We either have infinite time (3a) or finite time (3b)
I can't handle "finite Gods" (1b) because that implies that through work and/or luck a non-God became a God. I can't handle "infinite Gods" (1a) because there *HAS* to be a first, right?
Boom!
1) We either had an infinite (1a) number of Gods before our current Heavenly Father or a finite (1b) number of Gods before Him.
2) We either have an infinite (2a) amount of material/space to live in and use or a finite (2b) amount.
3) We either have infinite time (3a) or finite time (3b)
I can't handle "finite Gods" (1b) because that implies that through work and/or luck a non-God became a God. I can't handle "infinite Gods" (1a) because there *HAS* to be a first, right?
Boom!
#20 Comment from: Geoff Johnston [Visitor] · http://www.newcoolthang.com
David J: Spirits aren't created or made, like JS said.
I think you are overconfident in your interpretation of those quotes from Joseph. You seem to feel they unequivocally prove that each of our spirits are uncreated and have always existed in more or less their current form. While that is one way to read the quotes it is not the only way. And there are problems with that reading to begin with -- like for instance what to make of the concept Alma and others taught of the destruction of the soul (and soul meant spirit in that context -- that was long before the later notion of soul = body+spirit came up.)
Joseph did clearly imply that the spirits/minds/Intelligences of "man" have always existed. But that does not necessarily mean that your and my individual spirits have always been -- only that there have always been the Intelligences designated as "man" in existence. Another strong implication in that sermon (KFD) is that God used to have the spirit of a "man"; but now he has the spirit the spirit of a God right? So things clearly do change and God (Our Father -- even this title can mean lots of different things) has not eternally had his current level of intelligence.
I guess I am only objecting to your implication that the quotes you provided serve as conclusive proof of your interpretation of them. They don't.
I'll get around to posting more on this soon. I will defend the atomist/particles idea. It is the only version of eternity I can make sense of.
I think you are overconfident in your interpretation of those quotes from Joseph. You seem to feel they unequivocally prove that each of our spirits are uncreated and have always existed in more or less their current form. While that is one way to read the quotes it is not the only way. And there are problems with that reading to begin with -- like for instance what to make of the concept Alma and others taught of the destruction of the soul (and soul meant spirit in that context -- that was long before the later notion of soul = body+spirit came up.)
Joseph did clearly imply that the spirits/minds/Intelligences of "man" have always existed. But that does not necessarily mean that your and my individual spirits have always been -- only that there have always been the Intelligences designated as "man" in existence. Another strong implication in that sermon (KFD) is that God used to have the spirit of a "man"; but now he has the spirit the spirit of a God right? So things clearly do change and God (Our Father -- even this title can mean lots of different things) has not eternally had his current level of intelligence.
I guess I am only objecting to your implication that the quotes you provided serve as conclusive proof of your interpretation of them. They don't.
I'll get around to posting more on this soon. I will defend the atomist/particles idea. It is the only version of eternity I can make sense of.
#21 Comment from: Andermom [Visitor] · http://www.adventuresofnils.blogspot.com
I belive that what we perceive as this universe is not the totality of existance. Cosmologists have started to come to that viewpoint because if a truely infinite number of stars/galaxies have existed in this universe for a truely infinite amount of time in the past, then the night sky would be solid with stars. There would be a star/galaxy in every possible direction, and its light would have reached us given an infinite time period to get here.
This thought experiment only works if the cosmologist accepts that the universe has no beginning. While we as members of the church believe that there is no beginning or end, most cosmologists still accept a variation on the big bang theory, which implies that there is a beginning. A better reason to believe (scientifically) that this universe is not the totality of existence is because the mathematics indicates it. Also belief in a beginning to the universe doesn't preclude a belief in an eternal God that has no beginning. In fact I think it indicates a belief in God, and the model of existence (mulitple universes/planes of existence) that you are endorsing. The argument goes like this "God was and is 'somewhere else' and from that somewhere else he put this universe into motion." This would allow him to exist outside of the confines of time as he so often claims he does. If we really want to get into it we could start discussing the nature of light, and what exatly is meant when God describes himself as a being of light. While studying special relativity I once calculated how fast God would have to be moving in order for one day of his time to be a thousand years of our time. It came out to something 99.99998...% of the speed of light.
Anyhow Douglas Adams had an interesting logic chain from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe that is pretty funny "It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
#22 Comment from: J. Stapley [Visitor] · http://www.splendidsun.com
Geoff, I really think that equating book of Mormon/D&C references of soul distruction to is preposterous. It defies the text and Joseph Smith. Moreover, to say the mind of Man is eternal is something that Particle Man cannot abide.
#23 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
Bravo, J. The destruction of the soul, to an ancient Jew, is most likely an aphorism or metaphor for sin.
The idea that the two theories need to be "blended" is, to me, unnecessary. The possibility that subsequent leadership after JS got it wrong is, to me, much more believable then having to work out some theory that reconciles the two. Again, most of them were gone when he discussed this, and too busy dealing with Rigdon when they got back to take note of it.
Furthermore, if spirits are made from something else, then we're tripartite beings, not dual beings, which again is terribly innovative. That is to say, if "intelligence" isn't the same as a spirit, and that an intelligence is "clothed in a spirit body" -- where the heck is any of THAT written down in the early history? People tout it like some immutable and eternal truth, but it just isn't there. I mean, JS in the KFD, Abraham 3, it's all so simple if left untouched. There is no creation of spirits. They just "are." They're not "cut" from anything at all.
Again, as I state above, someone, sometime, way back in the beginnings of all things and times, there HAD to have been a being that is self-existing and eternal, and was not created or made in order to get the ball rolling. Stuff just doesn't make itself randomly. JS clearly states that "man exists upon the same self-existing principle as God." Since God is self-created and unmade, so is man. God's name even implies this when he revealed himself to Moses: 'eyeh asher 'eyeh. The name Yahweh means, according to the TDOT, "self-existing one" (I've also theorized that JS picked up on this doctrine from reading through that passage in Exodus while making the Insp. Ver.). For JS to come along and equate the two makes perfect sense, especially in the same discourse in which he states that God is really just no more than an exalted man. He even takes his ring off to demonstrate (I'm wearing a replica of that ring right now). So all of the atomistic or "spirit sons and daughters" stuff is a late innovation to gospel doctrine, probably in effort to keep up with the widely held views of the universal fatherhood of God theory or something. JS even says that "the idea lessens man in my opinion" for them to be created. He wants to equate God and man, for after all, as he states, God is an exalted man. Both of them are not created or made (Abr. 3:18 again). Coeternal (or, coeval) beings. God and man are just as "old" as each other (but with eternity, one really can't speak of "oldness," but there really is no adequate term to describe it otherwise, hence the use of the terminus tecnicus "the beginning" in Gen. 1, Abr. 3, etc.
Again, the spiritual chicken came before the spiritual egg (if there even is an egg). Somebody had to get the ball rolling at some point, which is where the "spirits are made of something" theory crumbles, which JS attempted to demonstrate with his ring. The language of the KFD is extremely clear and concise.
The idea that the two theories need to be "blended" is, to me, unnecessary. The possibility that subsequent leadership after JS got it wrong is, to me, much more believable then having to work out some theory that reconciles the two. Again, most of them were gone when he discussed this, and too busy dealing with Rigdon when they got back to take note of it.
Furthermore, if spirits are made from something else, then we're tripartite beings, not dual beings, which again is terribly innovative. That is to say, if "intelligence" isn't the same as a spirit, and that an intelligence is "clothed in a spirit body" -- where the heck is any of THAT written down in the early history? People tout it like some immutable and eternal truth, but it just isn't there. I mean, JS in the KFD, Abraham 3, it's all so simple if left untouched. There is no creation of spirits. They just "are." They're not "cut" from anything at all.
Again, as I state above, someone, sometime, way back in the beginnings of all things and times, there HAD to have been a being that is self-existing and eternal, and was not created or made in order to get the ball rolling. Stuff just doesn't make itself randomly. JS clearly states that "man exists upon the same self-existing principle as God." Since God is self-created and unmade, so is man. God's name even implies this when he revealed himself to Moses: 'eyeh asher 'eyeh. The name Yahweh means, according to the TDOT, "self-existing one" (I've also theorized that JS picked up on this doctrine from reading through that passage in Exodus while making the Insp. Ver.). For JS to come along and equate the two makes perfect sense, especially in the same discourse in which he states that God is really just no more than an exalted man. He even takes his ring off to demonstrate (I'm wearing a replica of that ring right now). So all of the atomistic or "spirit sons and daughters" stuff is a late innovation to gospel doctrine, probably in effort to keep up with the widely held views of the universal fatherhood of God theory or something. JS even says that "the idea lessens man in my opinion" for them to be created. He wants to equate God and man, for after all, as he states, God is an exalted man. Both of them are not created or made (Abr. 3:18 again). Coeternal (or, coeval) beings. God and man are just as "old" as each other (but with eternity, one really can't speak of "oldness," but there really is no adequate term to describe it otherwise, hence the use of the terminus tecnicus "the beginning" in Gen. 1, Abr. 3, etc.
Again, the spiritual chicken came before the spiritual egg (if there even is an egg). Somebody had to get the ball rolling at some point, which is where the "spirits are made of something" theory crumbles, which JS attempted to demonstrate with his ring. The language of the KFD is extremely clear and concise.
#24 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
David, I think the issue is more whether there is a difference between a 'pure spirit' and a 'spirit body.' It may well be that at this time Joseph simply hadn't developed the terminology yet. Further there is the notion, contemporary with Joseph, in Emerson and others of an oversoul or absolute spirit and then individual souls. This too would be compatible with the notions in the above and would in fact explain how God and man are co-eternal. I'm definitely not saying Joseph adopts a view like Emerson. I am, however, suggesting that things aren't as clear as you suggest. Especially given how later people took it.
#25 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
I just remembered that all sorts of people read these posts, so let me say that this is all speculation and guessing on my part. These things are not official doctrine of the church, and are not essential to our salvation. I'm just documenting my ideas.
David J: Somebody had to get the ball rolling at some point, ...
I think that's where your argument falls apart. I've read nothing by JS or any subsequent prophet to suggest that. There was no prime cause or being. There is no end nor beginning of gods and man. I think that your above assertion goes against the concept of an eternal (without beginning) past, and against JS's statement that there was no beginning.
The language of the KFD is extremely clear and concise.
The KFD was not canonized, nor officially endorsed by the then current 12, nor endorsed by any subsequent prophet, nor is its transcript "official." I would also challenge your assertion that it is clear and concise. Parts of it are not clear to me.
I have trouble conceptualizing that we had spirit bodies before becoming children of Elohim. We say that Jehovah/Jesus was the first-born of Elohim in the spirit. What then was that pre-mortal spiritual birth ? If we existed with spirit bodies prior to Elohim attaining exaltation, were we all just warehoused somewhere or floating around in unorganized space and then adopted?
We are taught that those who attain to exaltation in the future will have spirit children, and have "continuation of the seed" which implies some type of creation/organization as opposed to adoption. And I don't mean creation of spirit children ex-nihilo. A spirit body is made of spirit matter which cannot be created, but it can be organized.
BKP's phrase of "clothing an intelligence with a spirit body" makes complete sense to me, and does not at all conflict with my reading of the KFD or of sections 76, 132, and the Book of Abraham.
The modern scriptures and JS also give us an additional meaning of the word "eternal." One of those meanings can mean "without beginning", but another meaning is existing outside of time or before the creation/organization of this universe.
But I can conceptualize that "intelligences", units of some sort of light or energy, without spirit bodies, can exist in infinite unending numbers for a never-beginning and never-ending type of eternity, and then a large but finite number of those intelligences can be adopted by an exalted being, or rather an exalted couple, and be spiritually "born" to that exalted couple, obtaining spirit bodies and the ability to move, communicate, grow, etc.
The words "create," "organize" and "born" in reference to the pre-mortal existance just aren't precise enough. We don't know what those actions actually entailed.
I guess I do subscribe to the tripartite concept, if that means that an intelligence is housed in a spirit-body which is then housed in a physical body.
David J: Somebody had to get the ball rolling at some point, ...
I think that's where your argument falls apart. I've read nothing by JS or any subsequent prophet to suggest that. There was no prime cause or being. There is no end nor beginning of gods and man. I think that your above assertion goes against the concept of an eternal (without beginning) past, and against JS's statement that there was no beginning.
The language of the KFD is extremely clear and concise.
The KFD was not canonized, nor officially endorsed by the then current 12, nor endorsed by any subsequent prophet, nor is its transcript "official." I would also challenge your assertion that it is clear and concise. Parts of it are not clear to me.
I have trouble conceptualizing that we had spirit bodies before becoming children of Elohim. We say that Jehovah/Jesus was the first-born of Elohim in the spirit. What then was that pre-mortal spiritual birth ? If we existed with spirit bodies prior to Elohim attaining exaltation, were we all just warehoused somewhere or floating around in unorganized space and then adopted?
We are taught that those who attain to exaltation in the future will have spirit children, and have "continuation of the seed" which implies some type of creation/organization as opposed to adoption. And I don't mean creation of spirit children ex-nihilo. A spirit body is made of spirit matter which cannot be created, but it can be organized.
BKP's phrase of "clothing an intelligence with a spirit body" makes complete sense to me, and does not at all conflict with my reading of the KFD or of sections 76, 132, and the Book of Abraham.
The modern scriptures and JS also give us an additional meaning of the word "eternal." One of those meanings can mean "without beginning", but another meaning is existing outside of time or before the creation/organization of this universe.
But I can conceptualize that "intelligences", units of some sort of light or energy, without spirit bodies, can exist in infinite unending numbers for a never-beginning and never-ending type of eternity, and then a large but finite number of those intelligences can be adopted by an exalted being, or rather an exalted couple, and be spiritually "born" to that exalted couple, obtaining spirit bodies and the ability to move, communicate, grow, etc.
The words "create," "organize" and "born" in reference to the pre-mortal existance just aren't precise enough. We don't know what those actions actually entailed.
I guess I do subscribe to the tripartite concept, if that means that an intelligence is housed in a spirit-body which is then housed in a physical body.
#26 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
David, don't forget that Joseph said that which has a beginning must have an end. If there is birth there is death. If there was a creation, there must be an uncreation. If there is an organization to the spirit body, there must be a disorganization. However, if the spirit was not created and has existed forever and ever, we get to keep our spirits forever and ever. If there was a spirit clothing of our intelligence (whatever that might mean) then someday we will be stripped down to an intelligence again.
This is something you and I have talked about a little before. This is David of C&E made sure fame right?
This is something you and I have talked about a little before. This is David of C&E made sure fame right?
#27 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
I've read nothing by JS or any subsequent prophet to suggest that. There was no prime cause or being. There is no end nor beginning of gods and man. I think that your above assertion goes against the concept of an eternal (without beginning) past, and against JS's statement that there was no beginning.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting--there was no beginning for God and man. My whole point above was a retort of the other side's logic to point out to the folks who think that God has sex and creates spirit offspring (pre-mortal spirit obstetrics) is weird because someone, somewhere way back would have had to self-exist to get the ball rolling in this way, implying that the supreme being wasn't created like we (supposedly) are. JS clearly teaches that there is no beginning or end to God and man. That's what I was pointing out with the KFD quotations. JS thought God and man are eternal and not created or made. So I'm actually in total agreement with you there.
Nor does JS's KFD model jeopardize eternal progression. That one needs to be broken down and ground up into intelligence and then remade into a spirit to look different and then re-introduced to the world isn't necessary for eternal progression. Big deal what a person's spirit looks like. It's the progression of good over evil that is what is important, MMPs or not. The spirit can remain eternally unchanged, and yet experience multiple mortal probations if necessary without dissolution of any sort.
Also, since we know that God has a body of flesh and bones, and that supposedly his wife does too, why aren't they creating flesh and bone people when they procreate up in heaven then? I mean, when God "supposedly" had relations with Mary (I don't believe he did, but the Ezra Benson school does), he sired a flesh and bone being--Jesus. And if Joseph Fielding Smith is correct in saying that God created Adam in the same way that we procreate (Lk. 3:38), we have yet another piece of evidence to suggest a flesh-and-bone offspring issuing from flesh-and-bone parents (father and mother). It would seem, then, that any type of flesh and bone pre-mortal spirit sex, gestation, and birth would also create flesh-and-bone people. IMO, the pre-mortal spirit birth is more loaded with problems than the eternal self-existing spirit model of the KFD.
There's another problem with the "intelligence made into spirits" model, which I think was the prime reason this post started--wouldn't one run out of intelligence at some point, assuming spirits cannot be annihilated or crushed back down into their basic elements? If intelligence is "infinite," how is that not a logical paradox in light of the concept of eternity and eternal creation? If spirits could be reduced to their basic form, how does that then allow for the eternal, perpetual existence of the mind, like Stapley said above? Simple: if spirits are eternal, and "not created or made, neither indeed can be," then there will never be a drought nor surplus because the quotient never changes. The typical answer to this is "well, it's unclear," or "well, we won't know until the millenium" or whatever, but seriously, the language is right there in the sermon. And even if it was revealed in the millenium, wouldn't the answer be something simple to understand, like a type of clarification of sorts? Again, the gospel isn't based on, as one friend put it, cosmic mind-warps of mysteries--if people want that, they can go read the Chalcedonian Creed.
Then you have atonement problems -- if new spirit people are being created (and supposedly going down and sinning in their respective worlds), who's going to atone for the new people? Another savior? But the atonement, in Alma 7 (I think) is "infinite and eternal." However, according to the KFD model, if a spirit is eternal, then, and isn't created or made, and God does not create the spirit of man at all (WJS, p. 341, 352, 360), then only 1 savior and 1 atonement is needed and has "infinite and eternal" application because the number of spirit people is fixed--their souls (spirits) are forever under the umbrella of that singular event because they're just as eternal as the being who performed it (and the one who approved of it -- God).
Then you have problems with theodicy. Since God is making us into spirits, which have moral agency, would he then be ultimately responsible for their errors? The "spirit birth" folks would answer "yes, that's why he provided a savior." This is what theologians would consider a problem of theological ethics. (BTW, ethics is another terminus tecnicus which doesn't have much to do with ethics in other disciplines, like business or what have you). The theological ethic at stake is how is it God can be just when he's the one who creates the problem and then fixes it? That's not theologically ethical. But if you have eternal spirits which aren't created or made, God isn't ultimately responsible for their (inevitable) misdeeds on their respective earths, and provides a savior for them purely out of mercy and love--not because he obliged himself to do so by being the one who created the problem.
The KFD was not canonized, nor officially endorsed by the then current 12, nor endorsed by any subsequent prophet, nor is its transcript "official."
Which is the point I made above by stating that the KFD has been enigmatic to the church. That statement tacitly is evidenced in this thread -- it creates problems for people because it runs against the grain of Correlation. Again, by the time the church really got around to examining it (the Utah era), the Orson Pratt model had been published so widely and accepted so widely by then that this was all "new" to everyone, and hence has never been adopted (let's face it, the Mormon church has issues with going back on its word). Again, most of the 12 were gone when it was given, and had other concerns to deal with upon their return to Nauvoo. It went unnoticed (sadly).
I used to be in the "pre-mortal spirit obstetrics" school until I bought a copy of WJS. Then I swung into the eternal spirit category. Now I'm at a stage where I'm trying my darndest to swing back the other way, or at least empathize with my old self, but if I swing back to the Correlation pre-mortal view, it would be very, very difficult because of the wording of the KFD, which for me is simple. Apparently it presents difficulty for others. That's fine too. I don't understand a lot of Revelation, and yet didn't JS say it was the easiest for him to read, and Nephi say the same thing about Isaiah (IMO, Isaiah's really not that bad so long as the reader doesn't "Christianize" it)? I'm trying, you guys, I really am. I'm an original sources kind of guy, which perhaps is my hang-up here, as I'm terribly reluctant to venture outside of JS for an understanding on this, because to me his words in the KFD are plain. So bear with my arrogance, please. It's just a manifestation of internal struggle and frustration, nothing against you guys. All this haughty-sounding language is just me arguing with myself in search of an understanding of how I used to be and how the majority of the church and Correlation thinks on this.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting--there was no beginning for God and man. My whole point above was a retort of the other side's logic to point out to the folks who think that God has sex and creates spirit offspring (pre-mortal spirit obstetrics) is weird because someone, somewhere way back would have had to self-exist to get the ball rolling in this way, implying that the supreme being wasn't created like we (supposedly) are. JS clearly teaches that there is no beginning or end to God and man. That's what I was pointing out with the KFD quotations. JS thought God and man are eternal and not created or made. So I'm actually in total agreement with you there.
Nor does JS's KFD model jeopardize eternal progression. That one needs to be broken down and ground up into intelligence and then remade into a spirit to look different and then re-introduced to the world isn't necessary for eternal progression. Big deal what a person's spirit looks like. It's the progression of good over evil that is what is important, MMPs or not. The spirit can remain eternally unchanged, and yet experience multiple mortal probations if necessary without dissolution of any sort.
Also, since we know that God has a body of flesh and bones, and that supposedly his wife does too, why aren't they creating flesh and bone people when they procreate up in heaven then? I mean, when God "supposedly" had relations with Mary (I don't believe he did, but the Ezra Benson school does), he sired a flesh and bone being--Jesus. And if Joseph Fielding Smith is correct in saying that God created Adam in the same way that we procreate (Lk. 3:38), we have yet another piece of evidence to suggest a flesh-and-bone offspring issuing from flesh-and-bone parents (father and mother). It would seem, then, that any type of flesh and bone pre-mortal spirit sex, gestation, and birth would also create flesh-and-bone people. IMO, the pre-mortal spirit birth is more loaded with problems than the eternal self-existing spirit model of the KFD.
There's another problem with the "intelligence made into spirits" model, which I think was the prime reason this post started--wouldn't one run out of intelligence at some point, assuming spirits cannot be annihilated or crushed back down into their basic elements? If intelligence is "infinite," how is that not a logical paradox in light of the concept of eternity and eternal creation? If spirits could be reduced to their basic form, how does that then allow for the eternal, perpetual existence of the mind, like Stapley said above? Simple: if spirits are eternal, and "not created or made, neither indeed can be," then there will never be a drought nor surplus because the quotient never changes. The typical answer to this is "well, it's unclear," or "well, we won't know until the millenium" or whatever, but seriously, the language is right there in the sermon. And even if it was revealed in the millenium, wouldn't the answer be something simple to understand, like a type of clarification of sorts? Again, the gospel isn't based on, as one friend put it, cosmic mind-warps of mysteries--if people want that, they can go read the Chalcedonian Creed.
Then you have atonement problems -- if new spirit people are being created (and supposedly going down and sinning in their respective worlds), who's going to atone for the new people? Another savior? But the atonement, in Alma 7 (I think) is "infinite and eternal." However, according to the KFD model, if a spirit is eternal, then, and isn't created or made, and God does not create the spirit of man at all (WJS, p. 341, 352, 360), then only 1 savior and 1 atonement is needed and has "infinite and eternal" application because the number of spirit people is fixed--their souls (spirits) are forever under the umbrella of that singular event because they're just as eternal as the being who performed it (and the one who approved of it -- God).
Then you have problems with theodicy. Since God is making us into spirits, which have moral agency, would he then be ultimately responsible for their errors? The "spirit birth" folks would answer "yes, that's why he provided a savior." This is what theologians would consider a problem of theological ethics. (BTW, ethics is another terminus tecnicus which doesn't have much to do with ethics in other disciplines, like business or what have you). The theological ethic at stake is how is it God can be just when he's the one who creates the problem and then fixes it? That's not theologically ethical. But if you have eternal spirits which aren't created or made, God isn't ultimately responsible for their (inevitable) misdeeds on their respective earths, and provides a savior for them purely out of mercy and love--not because he obliged himself to do so by being the one who created the problem.
The KFD was not canonized, nor officially endorsed by the then current 12, nor endorsed by any subsequent prophet, nor is its transcript "official."
Which is the point I made above by stating that the KFD has been enigmatic to the church. That statement tacitly is evidenced in this thread -- it creates problems for people because it runs against the grain of Correlation. Again, by the time the church really got around to examining it (the Utah era), the Orson Pratt model had been published so widely and accepted so widely by then that this was all "new" to everyone, and hence has never been adopted (let's face it, the Mormon church has issues with going back on its word). Again, most of the 12 were gone when it was given, and had other concerns to deal with upon their return to Nauvoo. It went unnoticed (sadly).
I used to be in the "pre-mortal spirit obstetrics" school until I bought a copy of WJS. Then I swung into the eternal spirit category. Now I'm at a stage where I'm trying my darndest to swing back the other way, or at least empathize with my old self, but if I swing back to the Correlation pre-mortal view, it would be very, very difficult because of the wording of the KFD, which for me is simple. Apparently it presents difficulty for others. That's fine too. I don't understand a lot of Revelation, and yet didn't JS say it was the easiest for him to read, and Nephi say the same thing about Isaiah (IMO, Isaiah's really not that bad so long as the reader doesn't "Christianize" it)? I'm trying, you guys, I really am. I'm an original sources kind of guy, which perhaps is my hang-up here, as I'm terribly reluctant to venture outside of JS for an understanding on this, because to me his words in the KFD are plain. So bear with my arrogance, please. It's just a manifestation of internal struggle and frustration, nothing against you guys. All this haughty-sounding language is just me arguing with myself in search of an understanding of how I used to be and how the majority of the church and Correlation thinks on this.
#28 Comment from: David J [Visitor]
This is David of C&E made sure fame right
Yes.
Curtis Strong? Is that you? Dude! We meet on the blogs! You're the best, man. Your logic above is beautiful and delicious (#26). It makes sense, and is exactly what I think too, except for being stripped down again, because I think JS thought that the spirit is eternal. Dude, email me. We gotta catch up.
Trust me, I love this sermon so much and have read it so many times I even own one of those KFD ring replicas you can buy from Deseretarded book and wear it every day. This sermon just rocks and (for me) clears up so many inconsistencies, paradoxes, and illogical premises and arguments created by the pre-mortal obstetrics viewpoint.
Yes.
Curtis Strong? Is that you? Dude! We meet on the blogs! You're the best, man. Your logic above is beautiful and delicious (#26). It makes sense, and is exactly what I think too, except for being stripped down again, because I think JS thought that the spirit is eternal. Dude, email me. We gotta catch up.
Trust me, I love this sermon so much and have read it so many times I even own one of those KFD ring replicas you can buy from Deseretarded book and wear it every day. This sermon just rocks and (for me) clears up so many inconsistencies, paradoxes, and illogical premises and arguments created by the pre-mortal obstetrics viewpoint.
#29 Comment from: Gary [Visitor] · http://ndbf.blogspot.com
#30 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
If there was a spirit clothing of our intelligence (whatever that might mean) then someday we will be stripped down to an intelligence again.
I don't see that as a necessity. After the resurrection, our spirit body will never again be stripped of it's physical body, tangible body and spirit body will be permanently welded together. I can then accept that intelligences were clothed in spirit bodies with a welding that cannot be broken.
Your post #27 gives me plenty to chew on. My head is spinning with the cosmic implications of it all. And I think we still haven't agreed on the nuances of the verbs create and organize.
wouldn't one run out of intelligence at some point, assuming spirits cannot be annihilated or crushed back down into their basic elements?
Tell me if I have this right: you believe that there are an infinite number of pre-mortal spirit beings, personages of spirit, having spirit bodies, waiting to be "adopted" by exalted beings, but you reject the notion of an infinite number of intelligences waiting to be clothed in spirit bodies by exalted beings.
However, according to the KFD model, if a spirit is eternal, then, and isn't created or made, and God does not create the spirit of man at all
JS was also a stickler about the difference between "create" and "organize." To say that the spirit of man was not created could mean that it was not created out of nothingness. I think it leaves open the possibility that the spirit body of man was organized out of eternal spirit matter and used to clothe an eternal intelligence that had no beginning, nor will have an end. You call this "spirit obstetrics", but I say we don't really know it works.
It's only our limited finite minds that demand a true beginning or prime cause. To reconcile what JS said about beginning and ending: what we call beginnings and ends are merely phase/state changes, or starting-points or endpoints of activity periods.
I find it easier to accept that there is an infinite amount of "intelligence" or "intelligences" out there, and an infinite amount of "spirit matter", and an infinite amount of physical matter, all without beginning or end, and all without a "prime cause."
What gods do is put them (intelligence, spirit matter, physical matter) all together, "organizing" things into inanimate objects (rocks, planets), sub-human creatures (animals), and human creatures (man); things to act and things to be acted upon.
I don't see that as a necessity. After the resurrection, our spirit body will never again be stripped of it's physical body, tangible body and spirit body will be permanently welded together. I can then accept that intelligences were clothed in spirit bodies with a welding that cannot be broken.
Your post #27 gives me plenty to chew on. My head is spinning with the cosmic implications of it all. And I think we still haven't agreed on the nuances of the verbs create and organize.
wouldn't one run out of intelligence at some point, assuming spirits cannot be annihilated or crushed back down into their basic elements?
Tell me if I have this right: you believe that there are an infinite number of pre-mortal spirit beings, personages of spirit, having spirit bodies, waiting to be "adopted" by exalted beings, but you reject the notion of an infinite number of intelligences waiting to be clothed in spirit bodies by exalted beings.
However, according to the KFD model, if a spirit is eternal, then, and isn't created or made, and God does not create the spirit of man at all
JS was also a stickler about the difference between "create" and "organize." To say that the spirit of man was not created could mean that it was not created out of nothingness. I think it leaves open the possibility that the spirit body of man was organized out of eternal spirit matter and used to clothe an eternal intelligence that had no beginning, nor will have an end. You call this "spirit obstetrics", but I say we don't really know it works.
It's only our limited finite minds that demand a true beginning or prime cause. To reconcile what JS said about beginning and ending: what we call beginnings and ends are merely phase/state changes, or starting-points or endpoints of activity periods.
I find it easier to accept that there is an infinite amount of "intelligence" or "intelligences" out there, and an infinite amount of "spirit matter", and an infinite amount of physical matter, all without beginning or end, and all without a "prime cause."
What gods do is put them (intelligence, spirit matter, physical matter) all together, "organizing" things into inanimate objects (rocks, planets), sub-human creatures (animals), and human creatures (man); things to act and things to be acted upon.
#31 Comment from: Geoff Johnston [Visitor] · http://www.newcoolthang.com
David, don't forget that Joseph said that which has a beginning must have an end... If there was a spirit clothing of our intelligence (whatever that might mean) then someday we will be stripped down to an intelligence again. (#26)
This always cracks me up. In the KFD Joseph also made it clear that our God wasn't always God. So by this logic (that all things that have a beginning must have an end) our God must necessarily cease to be God some day. Is that what you really mean to be preaching David and Curtis?
This always cracks me up. In the KFD Joseph also made it clear that our God wasn't always God. So by this logic (that all things that have a beginning must have an end) our God must necessarily cease to be God some day. Is that what you really mean to be preaching David and Curtis?
#32 Comment from: cadams [Visitor]
RE: post #17
David J. said there's an original text error with D&C 130:22. Could he elaborate on that? I see no error with that verse, or alternative versions.
Thanks
David J. said there's an original text error with D&C 130:22. Could he elaborate on that? I see no error with that verse, or alternative versions.
Thanks
#33 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
David J, your argument appears to just be that there had to be "someone who go the ball rolling." Yet doesn't the appeal to actual infinities undermine? Certainly that's true for finite sets but it doesn't appear to be true for infinite sets. Counter-intuitive? Yes. But I don't see the logical problem.
#34 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Cadams, I can help you out there. This information is mostly from the awesome footnotes in Ehat's "Words of Joseph Smith" book.
"Neither the William Clayton Diary, the Joseph Smith Diary here quoted, nor the draft Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date implies the phrasing of D&C 130:22, 'Were it not so [that the Holy Ghost is a spirit], the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.' Originally the wording in the Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date was the same as in the original draft, but in the 1850's the Church historians reworded it to read the way it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants. Other than this alteration, the Joseph Smith Diary is the source for D&C 130:22-23."
And the Joseph Smith Diary entry for this date says the following:
"the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.--and a person cannot have the personage of the HG in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him," (original punctuation)
See the difference?
"Neither the William Clayton Diary, the Joseph Smith Diary here quoted, nor the draft Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date implies the phrasing of D&C 130:22, 'Were it not so [that the Holy Ghost is a spirit], the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.' Originally the wording in the Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date was the same as in the original draft, but in the 1850's the Church historians reworded it to read the way it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants. Other than this alteration, the Joseph Smith Diary is the source for D&C 130:22-23."
And the Joseph Smith Diary entry for this date says the following:
"the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.--and a person cannot have the personage of the HG in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him," (original punctuation)
See the difference?
#35 Comment from: Larry [Visitor]
David J.,
You have spent a great deal of time in the different theories regarding the eternal nature of God and man.
If I may, I would like to ask you to ponder a few thoughts?
In Facsimile #2 we are told that a cubit (about 18" in length)is the equivalent of 1000 years of our time. In Moses 7:37 he says that He can "stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made."
In verse 30 we are told that if we "could number the particles of the earth, yea millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations..."
Notice that the scripture refers to the particles of the earth not the earth itself, and then add in particles from millions of earths like this not being the beginning of His creations. Where do we find finite numbers in this?
And then it tells us in v.30 that "thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there;..."
In D&C 88:41 it says "He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." This raises a question as to how big He is.
And of course we could refer to 88:11 where the light that proceeds from His throne gives life to all things...
Where does the finite mind go to comprehend Him and His Father, and so on, back as far as eternity past? What about eternity future?
What happens if He ceases to be God because He has reached the finite end of those whom He can procreate; doesn't that destroy all His creations also, since they get their life from the light that proceeds forth from Him, and if He ceases to be God, then He no longer possesses the throne, and the light is gone?
Back to the cubit. If a cubit is approximately 18" in length, let's assume that it is cubed so that He can hold it in His hands, like a box. How much time does that incorporate if each cubit is 1000 years? How many creations does that cubit cubed hold for observation,since He can hold all His creations in His hands? How many cubed cubits is He capable of holding? How much space does He live in? Is He in a 9' x 9' x 9'cell so that His space is limited and He can only create so many earths and is therefore limited in the time He can be a God? And on and on it goes.
I would appreciate your observations.
You have spent a great deal of time in the different theories regarding the eternal nature of God and man.
If I may, I would like to ask you to ponder a few thoughts?
In Facsimile #2 we are told that a cubit (about 18" in length)is the equivalent of 1000 years of our time. In Moses 7:37 he says that He can "stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made."
In verse 30 we are told that if we "could number the particles of the earth, yea millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations..."
Notice that the scripture refers to the particles of the earth not the earth itself, and then add in particles from millions of earths like this not being the beginning of His creations. Where do we find finite numbers in this?
And then it tells us in v.30 that "thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there;..."
In D&C 88:41 it says "He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." This raises a question as to how big He is.
And of course we could refer to 88:11 where the light that proceeds from His throne gives life to all things...
Where does the finite mind go to comprehend Him and His Father, and so on, back as far as eternity past? What about eternity future?
What happens if He ceases to be God because He has reached the finite end of those whom He can procreate; doesn't that destroy all His creations also, since they get their life from the light that proceeds forth from Him, and if He ceases to be God, then He no longer possesses the throne, and the light is gone?
Back to the cubit. If a cubit is approximately 18" in length, let's assume that it is cubed so that He can hold it in His hands, like a box. How much time does that incorporate if each cubit is 1000 years? How many creations does that cubit cubed hold for observation,since He can hold all His creations in His hands? How many cubed cubits is He capable of holding? How much space does He live in? Is He in a 9' x 9' x 9'cell so that His space is limited and He can only create so many earths and is therefore limited in the time He can be a God? And on and on it goes.
I would appreciate your observations.
#36 Comment from: Christopher Bradford (Grasshopper) [Member]
cadams, I posted about the error in D&C 130:22 some time ago here at M*:
http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/04/01/all_scripture_is_given_by_inspiration_of
http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/04/01/all_scripture_is_given_by_inspiration_of
Permalink 12/18/05 @ 02:20 #37 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Bookslinger,
I see what you are saying when you propose that the "all that has a beginning must have an end" principle must not apply where the spirit comes into play since it must not apply with the resurrection.
I can't see any way around this though. Either the principle is true for all things or none in my mind. The ring that David loves; it goes around in a circle and returns to the same place again. There is no beginning and no end. I know this must seem problematic when it comes to eternal marriage and the resurrection etc.
One idea to float around though, is the explanation of the word, "eternal" in D&C 19. It applies to that which is associated with God and appears not to refer to an infinite measure of time. Seen in this light, even Eternal Life might have an end. Eternal marriage too. Have fun throwing that one back in my face.
I see what you are saying when you propose that the "all that has a beginning must have an end" principle must not apply where the spirit comes into play since it must not apply with the resurrection.
I can't see any way around this though. Either the principle is true for all things or none in my mind. The ring that David loves; it goes around in a circle and returns to the same place again. There is no beginning and no end. I know this must seem problematic when it comes to eternal marriage and the resurrection etc.
One idea to float around though, is the explanation of the word, "eternal" in D&C 19. It applies to that which is associated with God and appears not to refer to an infinite measure of time. Seen in this light, even Eternal Life might have an end. Eternal marriage too. Have fun throwing that one back in my face.
#38 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Larry, I tend to be of the opinion that there is some sort of figurative word play there when the Lord says He can hold his works in his hands.
Also, even very big numbers are finite.
Also, even very big numbers are finite.
#39 Comment from: Larry [Visitor]
Curtis,
Then what you are saying is that God speaks figurtively to impress us, so that we will what...speculate and philosophize. What we don't understand we put limits on. Understanding the principle of light might clear this one up.
Why do you think He used the comparison of a cubit of length = 1000 years of time? Within a cubed cubit there is 1 billion years of time.
If all things are present before him (that being all things past, present, and future,) and He is through, and around, and about all things, then why couldn't He hold all His creations in His hands? How insignificant a billion years is when it can be put in an 18"x18"x18" box.
The purpose in my using the illustration of a cubed cubit was to demonstrate the folly of trying to put limits on God or His creations. He is not limited in terms of space, material, or time.
The only limit on His creative abilities appears to be the number of spirit children He can have. Since, as some speculate, there is a finite number of intelligences that can be made into spirits, not only is He limited in His creative ability, but His promise to us that we can become like Him and do what He does is really a lie, because when we get there all the intelligences may have been used up,...doesn't that sound a little ludicrous?
We can't escape the argument by simply stating that even large numbers have limits. It is a circular argument that comes to no conclusion. Either what the Lord says is true or it isn't. If it isn't then what does anything matter in the 'end'.
If spirits can be recycled, then what is the purpose of existence really? Just some pratical joke by a control freak?
Using the argument that even large numbers have limits, at some point after all the recycling is done, everyone will have been exalted and the work done. What happens then?
Someone breaks the leggo blocks down and we start over again?
Then what you are saying is that God speaks figurtively to impress us, so that we will what...speculate and philosophize. What we don't understand we put limits on. Understanding the principle of light might clear this one up.
Why do you think He used the comparison of a cubit of length = 1000 years of time? Within a cubed cubit there is 1 billion years of time.
If all things are present before him (that being all things past, present, and future,) and He is through, and around, and about all things, then why couldn't He hold all His creations in His hands? How insignificant a billion years is when it can be put in an 18"x18"x18" box.
The purpose in my using the illustration of a cubed cubit was to demonstrate the folly of trying to put limits on God or His creations. He is not limited in terms of space, material, or time.
The only limit on His creative abilities appears to be the number of spirit children He can have. Since, as some speculate, there is a finite number of intelligences that can be made into spirits, not only is He limited in His creative ability, but His promise to us that we can become like Him and do what He does is really a lie, because when we get there all the intelligences may have been used up,...doesn't that sound a little ludicrous?
We can't escape the argument by simply stating that even large numbers have limits. It is a circular argument that comes to no conclusion. Either what the Lord says is true or it isn't. If it isn't then what does anything matter in the 'end'.
If spirits can be recycled, then what is the purpose of existence really? Just some pratical joke by a control freak?
Using the argument that even large numbers have limits, at some point after all the recycling is done, everyone will have been exalted and the work done. What happens then?
Someone breaks the leggo blocks down and we start over again?
#40 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
Curtis: (#37) To me, the word "beginning" does not mean something was created out of nothingness. I think that was the point Joseph was making in the King Follet Discourse. Whether it was in the KFD or elsewhere, Joseph said, and stressed, that the word "created" in Genesis should have read "organized." Hebrew scholars agree.
Joseph said that spirit beings had no beginning, that they were not created. However, that does not mean they weren't organized or "assembled" (or even "spirit obstetics" if you want to use hyperbole) by exalted beings who took a pre-existing eternal intelligence and clothed it in pre-existing eternal spirit matter which they assembled into the form of a spirit body, and then somehow used their own "eternal light" to kindle or activate that intelligence in that spirit body.
That raw intelligence always existed; and the spirit matter of its body had always existed. But then, as I envision it, the two parts were combined or organized, and the intelligence then had an instrument with which to see, act, move about, and communicate.
I think it is possible that the intelligence was somehow dormant until it came under the influence of, or received the radiation of light, from the exalted couple.
Joseph said that spirit beings had no beginning, that they were not created. However, that does not mean they weren't organized or "assembled" (or even "spirit obstetics" if you want to use hyperbole) by exalted beings who took a pre-existing eternal intelligence and clothed it in pre-existing eternal spirit matter which they assembled into the form of a spirit body, and then somehow used their own "eternal light" to kindle or activate that intelligence in that spirit body.
That raw intelligence always existed; and the spirit matter of its body had always existed. But then, as I envision it, the two parts were combined or organized, and the intelligence then had an instrument with which to see, act, move about, and communicate.
I think it is possible that the intelligence was somehow dormant until it came under the influence of, or received the radiation of light, from the exalted couple.
#41 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Larry,
I don't know, but you may be onto something with your spirit recycling illustration. We don't really know what our endpoint is, or what happens after this life. We really know disturbingly little about the eternities.
To me, everything you mentioned above as means of an arguement against what I'm inferring, is a possibility. The dead end you come to is the purpose of it all if recycling is the answer. Perhaps all we can see is a "practical joke by a control freak," but perhaps there is a greater purpose we haven't thought of.
I should try not to cling too tightly to any opinion about the afterlife. I'm open to MMP's, spirit obstetrics (though it really seems ludicrous to me) etc.
Wish I really knew.
I don't know, but you may be onto something with your spirit recycling illustration. We don't really know what our endpoint is, or what happens after this life. We really know disturbingly little about the eternities.
To me, everything you mentioned above as means of an arguement against what I'm inferring, is a possibility. The dead end you come to is the purpose of it all if recycling is the answer. Perhaps all we can see is a "practical joke by a control freak," but perhaps there is a greater purpose we haven't thought of.
I should try not to cling too tightly to any opinion about the afterlife. I'm open to MMP's, spirit obstetrics (though it really seems ludicrous to me) etc.
Wish I really knew.
#42 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Bookslinger,
Sure, I grant you that possibility. I couldn't say anything with absolute assurance anyway. We should leave open the possibility though that the "organization" of the premortal spirits was a social organization. Many statement of Joseph Smith seem to support that idea. For example, "The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them," and, "At the first organization in heaven we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed, and the plan of salvation made and we sanctioned it," and, "He who rules in the heavens when he has a certain work to do calls the Spirits before him to organize them," and Joseph Fielding Smith who said, "Men were organized in some such way as we are organized here in the kingdom of God. Among the spirits of men there were fuperior intelligences chosen to act in authority."
The scripture that is cited as proof text for a spirit birth is D&C 76:24 which testifies, "that by him, and through him, and of him; the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Grammatically speaking, the preposition "unto" is dative, making God the indirect object of the birth mentioned. It would require the genitive preposition "of" to make God the one who is giving birth. The preposition unto is only used elsewhere in scripture when associated with birth to describe the siring of a child by one person to be given to or for the benefit of another. For example, "unto us a child is born;" "his brother shall...raise up seed unto me." Of course, the official view on this scripture is that this verse refers to the spiritual rebirth through Christ.
Orson Pratt had a different view here. He said, "Notice, this does not say that God, whom we serve and worship, was actually the Father Himself, in His own person, of all these sons and daughters of the different worlds, but they're begotten sons and daughters unto God, that is, begotten by those who are made like him...They begat sons and daughters, and begat them unto God, to inhabit these different worlds."
Go figure.
(The above was mostly taken from Charles R. Harrell's "The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844" as it appeared in BYU Studies 1988. I've got the PDF if anyone would like me to send them a copy.)
Sure, I grant you that possibility. I couldn't say anything with absolute assurance anyway. We should leave open the possibility though that the "organization" of the premortal spirits was a social organization. Many statement of Joseph Smith seem to support that idea. For example, "The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them," and, "At the first organization in heaven we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed, and the plan of salvation made and we sanctioned it," and, "He who rules in the heavens when he has a certain work to do calls the Spirits before him to organize them," and Joseph Fielding Smith who said, "Men were organized in some such way as we are organized here in the kingdom of God. Among the spirits of men there were fuperior intelligences chosen to act in authority."
The scripture that is cited as proof text for a spirit birth is D&C 76:24 which testifies, "that by him, and through him, and of him; the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Grammatically speaking, the preposition "unto" is dative, making God the indirect object of the birth mentioned. It would require the genitive preposition "of" to make God the one who is giving birth. The preposition unto is only used elsewhere in scripture when associated with birth to describe the siring of a child by one person to be given to or for the benefit of another. For example, "unto us a child is born;" "his brother shall...raise up seed unto me." Of course, the official view on this scripture is that this verse refers to the spiritual rebirth through Christ.
Orson Pratt had a different view here. He said, "Notice, this does not say that God, whom we serve and worship, was actually the Father Himself, in His own person, of all these sons and daughters of the different worlds, but they're begotten sons and daughters unto God, that is, begotten by those who are made like him...They begat sons and daughters, and begat them unto God, to inhabit these different worlds."
Go figure.
(The above was mostly taken from Charles R. Harrell's "The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844" as it appeared in BYU Studies 1988. I've got the PDF if anyone would like me to send them a copy.)
#43 Comment from: Geoff Johnston [Visitor] · http://www.newcoolthang.com
I responded to David J and Curtis in a post here. (Synopsis: I think that beginningless and irreducible spirits are incompatible with progress.)
#44 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
Intelligence exists in varying degrees of order from least to great. God told Abraham that where two intelligences exist, one of them is more intelligent than the other. And another is still more intelligent than them both, and so on until one ascends to the order of the most high, which is more intelligent than them all. It seems reasonable to me that a noble particle, or germ of intelligence can be called, chosen, and set apart from other intelligences to quicken and preside over a collective body of the same - spirit. Much like an Elder can be called and set apart from his piers to preside over the whole quorum as their president. Every Elder in the quarum posseses intelligence independant from the President, but they collectively adhere to his direction because they honor him in the capacity of his calling, as a matter of order and obedience. If we can observe the order of the Priesthood in large, easily discernable things like a quarum etc., than why not assume that the same priesthood order exist with things that we cannot see? I think that's what D&C 88 is all about when it talks about the light that eminates from the presence of the Father and fills the emensity of space, the light of truth that quickens and maintains order in all things from the most high, and closest to the Father, all the way down the scale to the least and most distant from the Father. All is intelligence acting in the sphere in which it is placed. Wither a portion of it is organized into a redeemed, exalted man, or a piece of rock drifting endlessly through the most distant reaches of space. I disagree with the notion that intelligence, spirit, and matter are all different substances. If they are all eternal and without a beginning than it seems more ligical that they are all varying degrees of the same substance. Intelligence being the quickest and most refined, or pure. Joseph Smith already said that Spirit is matter in D&C 131, so why can't intelligence be still higher and more refined matter than spirit? Indeed, intelligence is what quickens and gives life and order to the more gross orders of matter. (the light of truth) The order of the Priesthood is omnipresent, without beginning of days or end of years. I think it's more profitable to ponder the highs and lows of the order than to seek the great "first God" who organized the first worlds etc. We have to take our minds off of linear thoughts of beginnings and endings and accept that "all truth is circumscribed into one great whole" The whole being infinately divisable and existing in varying degrees from all eternity to all eternity.
#45 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
Whoe cares: I think that's what D&C 88 is all about when it talks about the light that eminates from the presence of the Father and fills the emensity of space, the light of truth that quickens and maintains order in all things from the most high, and closest to the Father, all the way down the scale to the least and most distant from the Father.
My understanding of D&C 88 is that the light that fills the immensity of space emanates from Jesus.
My understanding of D&C 88 is that the light that fills the immensity of space emanates from Jesus.
#46 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
It is the light of Christ but I don't think that means it necessarily emanates from Christ the way light emanates from the sun - although that's certainly possible. But I'd be cautious about pushing metaphors quite like that. Although personally I think taking it that way makes sense, although I personally think this would be true of all divine beings.
#47 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Now that we're talking about light, just a note here. I had a physics instructor in college who told me that in breaking down the atom, the smallest irreducible particle that makes up the atom, which is the building block for all matter, is photons of light. Apparently we're all made out of light, which would make sense as to how our physical and spiritual selves react to light from God.
#48 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
Curtis, that's not correct. I'm not sure why he would have told you that. There are several kinds of irreducible particles (according to current physics - string theory may assert more fundamental things, but string theory isn't established physics yet). There are quarks of several colors. Quarks always appear in threes and are what constitute neutrons and protons. Then there are the electrons (for typical matter - there are more exotic kinds of atoms). Electrons are irreducible.
Now you can change quarks and electrons into energy which typically ends up with the emission of a photon. But it's not really accurate to say that they are photons.
Now you can change quarks and electrons into energy which typically ends up with the emission of a photon. But it's not really accurate to say that they are photons.
#49 Comment from: Larry [Visitor]
It is the light of Christ that gives life to all things, but that light originates with the Father and was given to the Son (fulness of the Father in premortal existence) to act as though He were the Father in the process of creation.
As to matter, (quirks or quarks,)it is my understanding that it exists independently, but it is the light of Christ that makes it come alive and viable.
As to matter, (quirks or quarks,)it is my understanding that it exists independently, but it is the light of Christ that makes it come alive and viable.
#50 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
The light of Christ gives life to all things, but it is also the law by which all things are governed. I think it is by our obedience to this light that we gain entrance to even the highest of kingdoms. I like the way D&C 84 explains that the Word of God, that we are supposed to be living according to, is the same as the light of Christ. It is by following the light of Christ then, according to Joseph Smith, that we can eventually have our calling and election made sure. I believe that the light of Christ then is the Savior speaking to each of us every day. The Holy Ghost is the one who brings us this light, but the Holy Ghost himself never speaks of himself, only that which he has heard from the Savior. Sometimes I fear we put the light of Christ into the category of a lesser form of revelation in the Church, saying that it is this light which guides us to the Church and then after we are baptized we "have the Holy Ghost" to guide us. I believe that it is the Holy Ghost that brings us the Light of Christ. Christ backs this up with His statement in D&C 8:2 which says: "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost..."
#51 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
My point wasn't about light, it was about order. The original post on this now lengthy page was a concern that if intelligence cannot be created than there must be a finite amount of them which brings up the problem of perhaps running out of them someday for creative purposes, etc. I respond by noting that space is boundless and eternally saturated with particles of intelligence which exist in varying degrees of order from least to great. We know this because the Lord told JS that there is no space in which there is no kingdom (intelligence), and there is no kingdom in which there is no space. Since space is boundless, the eternal, finite particles of intelligence which occupy that space must be boundless in quantity as well.
If intelligence abides the laws which govern it's sphere of existance than it can be added upon, and called to quicken or govern more complex orders. This process of obedience to law continues to elevate intelligence throughout countless generations of time from lower orders to higher ones until at last it has qualified for the grandest organization in the entire reaches of space - a son, or daughter of redeemed, exalted parents. Intelligence can opt out of the process at any time through disobedience to law, the same option of course that we now have in this mortal probation.
If intelligence abides the laws which govern it's sphere of existance than it can be added upon, and called to quicken or govern more complex orders. This process of obedience to law continues to elevate intelligence throughout countless generations of time from lower orders to higher ones until at last it has qualified for the grandest organization in the entire reaches of space - a son, or daughter of redeemed, exalted parents. Intelligence can opt out of the process at any time through disobedience to law, the same option of course that we now have in this mortal probation.
#52 Comment from: Curtis [Visitor]
Where does it say space is boundless who cares?
#53 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
It is a "necessary" truth that space is boundless because an opposite belief - that there's some great wall out there that marks the end of space is inconceivable.
Orson Pratt talks about the difference between "necessary" and "contingent" truths and specificaly mentions the boundlessness of space as a necessary truth. I believe you can find it in his discourse entitled, "The Great First Cause, or Self-Moving Forces of Nature" etc. I'll double check which discourse it is tonight and post tomorrow.
Orson Pratt talks about the difference between "necessary" and "contingent" truths and specificaly mentions the boundlessness of space as a necessary truth. I believe you can find it in his discourse entitled, "The Great First Cause, or Self-Moving Forces of Nature" etc. I'll double check which discourse it is tonight and post tomorrow.
#54 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
It is "Great First Cause, or the Self Moving Forces of the Universe" by Orson Pratt.
#55 Comment from: Blake [Visitor]
For what it's worth, I agree with David J and with some reservations most of his reasoning. For JS and in the BofAbr. it seems fairly clear that there is no distinction between spirits and intelligences. Spirits are eternal without creation and there isn't time a time when they transitioned from being an intelligence simplicter to be being a spirit/intelligence combination. To the extent the Proclamation on the Family assumes or adopts spirit birth, it seems to me that it is adopting a cultural overbelief that we are best instructed to resist.
#56 Comment from: Christian Y. Cardall [Visitor] · http://spinozist.blogspot.com
Blake, how do you understand references to progeny in eternity in for example D&C 132:19, 63?
#57 Comment from: LisaB [Visitor]
Funny to stumble into this conversation. Just taught the last Gospel Principles lesson of the year in Sunday School last week. Topic: Exaltation. Emphatic point of the lesson? Eternal offspring a la 132. (So much for milk before meat, eh?) So you're all saying this is only the "correlation" view? And that early JS teachings differ on this point? Help me out here.
#58 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
"Who Cares," I think Orson Pratt's arguments in this regard are pretty weak. Not to bring in the other topic, but I think we can establish that our universe has boundaries. Thus to rescue our doctrine of actual infinities requires multiple universes.
#59 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
Blake- Elder Worthlin said (I believe it was the Oct 04' Conf) that intelligence is "clothed" with spirit so their must be some difference between the two.
Clark- Multiple Universes? This cannot be established by any necessity, experience, reason, analogy, or divine revelation. We are left to conclude that there is but one "space". Even the prefix of the word universe (uni) means one. The sooner we come to terms with a boundless space and eternal duration of the substance which occupies it, the sooner we can let go of our natural search for a beginning or first God, etc.
Clark- Multiple Universes? This cannot be established by any necessity, experience, reason, analogy, or divine revelation. We are left to conclude that there is but one "space". Even the prefix of the word universe (uni) means one. The sooner we come to terms with a boundless space and eternal duration of the substance which occupies it, the sooner we can let go of our natural search for a beginning or first God, etc.
#60 Comment from: Bookslinger [Visitor]
whocares:
Didn't Stephen Hawking use "reason" to establish the possibility or even the likelihood of multiple universes?
Didn't Stephen Hawking use "reason" to establish the possibility or even the likelihood of multiple universes?
#61 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
What is Mr. Hawking's reason for multiple universes Bookslinger?
#62 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
"Who cares," theoretical physicists embrace a multiverse for two main reasons. Many attempts at unifying quantum mechanics and gravity fully note that a sufficiently flat space-time can have odd effects quantum mechanically. Some of these would lead to the same conditions as are postulated for the big bang. In string theory, one solution, called M-theory, entails multiple universes, called branes, floating in a higher dimensional space. They are all rather speculative and at this time without direct empirical evidence. But what is surprising is that after the controversy when Linde introduced the multiverse in the 90's is how widespread the multiverse has become. Very disparate physical theories end up with a multiverse.
The big problem in physics today is not that theories predict too little but rather they predict too much. The aim of physics has been to answer "why" to why various constants exist. Yet, in a multiverse situation there is no why. There are infinite possibilities and we just happen to be in the universe that has the laws of physics we see.
While the multiverse is still very theoretical, the idea that space is infinite is very much discredited and can be largely shown to be false, at least in the three dimensions we encounter.
The big problem in physics today is not that theories predict too little but rather they predict too much. The aim of physics has been to answer "why" to why various constants exist. Yet, in a multiverse situation there is no why. There are infinite possibilities and we just happen to be in the universe that has the laws of physics we see.
While the multiverse is still very theoretical, the idea that space is infinite is very much discredited and can be largely shown to be false, at least in the three dimensions we encounter.
#63 Comment from: Ivan Wolfe [Visitor] · http://inmediasrays.blogspot.com/
Well, we all know the Multiverse was destroyed in 1985 by the Crisis on Infinite Earths.
However, the single universe was imperfectly put together, as Donna Troy just found out. And since the Earth-2 Superman has just returned, perhaps the recent Infinite Crisis will restore the Multiverse.
(oh - wait, wrong message board discussion) ;-)
However, the single universe was imperfectly put together, as Donna Troy just found out. And since the Earth-2 Superman has just returned, perhaps the recent Infinite Crisis will restore the Multiverse.
(oh - wait, wrong message board discussion) ;-)
#64 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
Clark your argument is fragmented and unclear. Do you really think Orson Pratt's declaration of a boundless space is weak because theoretical physicists embrace a "multiverse"? (apparently for "two main reasons" although you fail to itemize them) WARNING: Beware the seduction of beautiful mathematics!
The mathematics of String Theory tell us that there exists vibrating stings of energy that behave in ways that are all together impossible in our known 3 dimensions of space. (omitting the effect of time for the moment) To account for this action they've come up with 11 dimensions that are indiscernable and entirely unprovable accept through mathematics and they're endless search to apply Gravity to all matter in all places at all times. They propose that these 11 dimensions constitute a "higher dimensional space" in which multiple 3 dimensional universes can be stacked on top of each other like sheets of paper in a reem.
When our inteligence is finaly released from the animation of our bodies at death, we shall at once discern that it is not subject to the law of Gravity at all. We can and will exist in the same space that Gravity does but will be entirely void of it's effects and limitations. There are some who have seen the resurrected Lord and can render their witness that his body occupies mass and is all together exempt from the law of Gravity. The universal effect of Gravity must therefore be a manafestation of obedience to Divine Law. Yes, man has learned how to express this Law with mathematics but we are not free to assume that inteligence is eternaly bound and shackled to that Law. Indeed, "inteligence is free in the shere in which it is placed to act for itself, otherwise there is no existance." Man's attempt to unify the forces of the universe excludes the application of faith and relys soley on what can be "proven". Daniel prophesied of our day and said that man would worship the "God of Forces" (ch 10, or 11 I think) and I again caution any and all concerned not to tread lightly the revealed truths of heaven from the Lord's Annointed because "theoretical physicists embrace a multivers for two main reasons".
The mathematics of String Theory tell us that there exists vibrating stings of energy that behave in ways that are all together impossible in our known 3 dimensions of space. (omitting the effect of time for the moment) To account for this action they've come up with 11 dimensions that are indiscernable and entirely unprovable accept through mathematics and they're endless search to apply Gravity to all matter in all places at all times. They propose that these 11 dimensions constitute a "higher dimensional space" in which multiple 3 dimensional universes can be stacked on top of each other like sheets of paper in a reem.
When our inteligence is finaly released from the animation of our bodies at death, we shall at once discern that it is not subject to the law of Gravity at all. We can and will exist in the same space that Gravity does but will be entirely void of it's effects and limitations. There are some who have seen the resurrected Lord and can render their witness that his body occupies mass and is all together exempt from the law of Gravity. The universal effect of Gravity must therefore be a manafestation of obedience to Divine Law. Yes, man has learned how to express this Law with mathematics but we are not free to assume that inteligence is eternaly bound and shackled to that Law. Indeed, "inteligence is free in the shere in which it is placed to act for itself, otherwise there is no existance." Man's attempt to unify the forces of the universe excludes the application of faith and relys soley on what can be "proven". Daniel prophesied of our day and said that man would worship the "God of Forces" (ch 10, or 11 I think) and I again caution any and all concerned not to tread lightly the revealed truths of heaven from the Lord's Annointed because "theoretical physicists embrace a multivers for two main reasons".
#65 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
I think that Orson Pratt's declarations are weak because he offers no evidence for him and because his conception of matter is wrong.
I think that whatever one does one has to account for the big bang and the empirical fact that the universe is finite in size. If you can do that please let me know how.
For the record I don't consider string theory a correct physical theory. I just note the reasons why a multiverse is important. I also think a multiverse is the only way to reconcile the empirical facts of our universe with the necessity of certain kinds of infinities our theology requires.
I think that whatever one does one has to account for the big bang and the empirical fact that the universe is finite in size. If you can do that please let me know how.
For the record I don't consider string theory a correct physical theory. I just note the reasons why a multiverse is important. I also think a multiverse is the only way to reconcile the empirical facts of our universe with the necessity of certain kinds of infinities our theology requires.
#66 Comment from: Heli [Visitor]
Clark
I can't believe you accept the theory that the universe is finite, much less that you state your theory as fact. As a physics student I saw how the big bang theory changed at least 4 times as better telescopes and technology showed the "known" universe to be much larger than previously anticipated.
We could exist in one large group of stars and one universe away there could be another group of stars we have not dectected yet because the light will take so long to get to us, or because we don't have equipment that can detect stars that far away. The idea that we can even know the universe is finite is not justified by science and goes against scripture.
Empirical Fact? Can you define this term for me, because I think we have different definitions of empirical facts. If we don't can you show me the evidence this universe is finite? Please draw a map showing how far our universe extends and explain how it doesn't go any farther.
I can't believe you accept the theory that the universe is finite, much less that you state your theory as fact. As a physics student I saw how the big bang theory changed at least 4 times as better telescopes and technology showed the "known" universe to be much larger than previously anticipated.
We could exist in one large group of stars and one universe away there could be another group of stars we have not dectected yet because the light will take so long to get to us, or because we don't have equipment that can detect stars that far away. The idea that we can even know the universe is finite is not justified by science and goes against scripture.
Empirical Fact? Can you define this term for me, because I think we have different definitions of empirical facts. If we don't can you show me the evidence this universe is finite? Please draw a map showing how far our universe extends and explain how it doesn't go any farther.
#67 Comment from: Heli [Visitor]
Clark
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but can you refer me to any material showing that an unlimited universe has been discredited?
I've had these discussions before because I had an institute teacher with a science background and when we discussed the infinte number of intelligences I started thinking about the different sizes of infinity. (I had just taken imaginary numbers)
Theoretically you can have an infinite amount of mass in a finite amount of space if the mass is infinitely dense (a theoretical possibility that doesn't sound possible in the natural universe). Even a black hole is not infinitely dense though it is very difficult for us to attempt to calculate the numbers. Certainly infinitely dense objects are mathmatically possible. The point is you can have an infinite number of people in an infinte space, but it doesn't seem possible to know if either is infinite, especially if one of the infinities is growing.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but can you refer me to any material showing that an unlimited universe has been discredited?
I've had these discussions before because I had an institute teacher with a science background and when we discussed the infinte number of intelligences I started thinking about the different sizes of infinity. (I had just taken imaginary numbers)
Theoretically you can have an infinite amount of mass in a finite amount of space if the mass is infinitely dense (a theoretical possibility that doesn't sound possible in the natural universe). Even a black hole is not infinitely dense though it is very difficult for us to attempt to calculate the numbers. Certainly infinitely dense objects are mathmatically possible. The point is you can have an infinite number of people in an infinte space, but it doesn't seem possible to know if either is infinite, especially if one of the infinities is growing.
#68 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
An unlimited universe is impossible to reconcile with gravity, isn't it?
I guess I'm not following your logic. There are (and will continue to be) modifications to the big bang. But you are advocating something quite bit stronger. It's one thing to say our calculations of mass are wrong or (in present day controversies) that our ideas of dark matter are off. It's quite an other to say the universe is infinite.
I guess I'm not following your logic. There are (and will continue to be) modifications to the big bang. But you are advocating something quite bit stronger. It's one thing to say our calculations of mass are wrong or (in present day controversies) that our ideas of dark matter are off. It's quite an other to say the universe is infinite.
#69 Comment from: Heli [Visitor]
So why is an infinte universe incompatible with gravity? Because gravitational forces act on objects regardless of the distance? Our understanding of gravity is very limited. Gravity may have a radius of effect, or other systems of mass may be so far that their effect on us is unmeasureable.
Imagine our universe is the size of a grape and the next universe is where the moon is or where Jupiter is, who would know. We certainly would not be able to feel their gravitational effect.
I may be wrong, I'm not an astro-physicist.
Imagine our universe is the size of a grape and the next universe is where the moon is or where Jupiter is, who would know. We certainly would not be able to feel their gravitational effect.
I may be wrong, I'm not an astro-physicist.
#70 Comment from: Clark Goble [Member]
Doesn't your response reduce down to "maybe everything we know about physics is wrong?"
#71 Comment from: who cares [Visitor]
Space is boundless Clark, no matter what you call it or how you subdivide it. You can say there's a universe here or there, you can say there's a multiverse which envelopes them here or there, or everywhere, but no matter how you classify it - space, in and of itself is boundless.
Deity can never run ouf of space to propagate the great plan of happiness and order amongst the varying degrees of eternal, uncreated inteligences.
Deity can never run ouf of space to propagate the great plan of happiness and order amongst the varying degrees of eternal, uncreated inteligences.
1 comments:
It is remarkable, rather valuable piece
Post a Comment