• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Eternal Progression In a Mormon Multiverse"

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Clear,

A quick note here to add two items that I forgot to include in my last post to you. I think you will find the content relevant to your interests and interesting as well.
Both cover the same subject matter. The first is a link to a book by Benjamin D. Sommer. The second is a Youtube soundtrack of Sommer's oral presentation of the same information in his book (or much of it, anyway).

I leave them to you to chew through, if you choose, at your leisure.
Feedback to me isn't requested or expected,
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Terry Sampson ;

Since you felt the links were relevant and interesting, I did read some of the PDF and researched a bit about Sommers' theory. I did not watch the 6 hour long video you linked to. I usually have very little enthusiasm for links to videos, (especially 6 hour videos). I prefer the poster describe the relevant points of any video they watched.

However, I am not sure how you wanted to apply Sommers’ theories to our discussion. What important questions does his theory answer? How does his theory integrate coherently into historical Judeo-Christian worldviews? Does his theory simplify anything historically or does it further complicate the historical Judeo-Christian theology without adding important insight?

For example :

While Sommer adopts the ancient model of the body as an “avatar” to the soul as it is a simple model of the spirit “driving” the body, (an old concept), I am not sure what important theological questions his theory of MULTIPLE Avatar/bodies “driven” by a single God would answer any more efficiently that a God adopting a single body which he could change at an instant if he desires. Multiple Avatars for a single God to use is superfluous if God can, at will, change the appearance of one body. How does a theory of multiple avatars of a single Judeo-Christian God simplify, explain, or add insight to theology in such a case?

Can you explain how you feel Sommers' theories relates to the principles that we have been discussing?

See you Terry

Clear
φιφιδρω
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
However, I am not sure how you wanted to apply Sommers’ theories to our discussion.

Then I have overestimated their potential interest to you and wasted your time by offering them. We'll ignore them and move on. Sorry.

I'm still working on a response to your post #20.

Regards,
Terry
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Terry;

I misunderstood. I thought you offered the links because YOU thought they were relevant to the discussion. I just couldn't see HOW you thought they were relevant and this was the reason I asked about the application and usefullness of the data you offered.

Was there some way in which you felt Sommers' theory and data was relevant? If so, I don't want to skip over some data that you think has value Terry. On the other hand, if the data is historically irrelevant to authentic Judeo-Christianity, then it is irrelevant.

Thanks Terry

Clear
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member

Good Morning, Clear:

From your last post, #20.

(1) C: However, it is my understanding that the “big bang” does not tell us where matter comes from (since the “big bang” assumes matter exists at the moment the "bang" occurs), but instead, attempts to explain why this original matter acts the way it does (e.g. an expanding universe caused by a “big bang”).

(3) C: It is my understanding that science AGREES with religion that the material universe originated with matter. Perhaps you misunderstood my claim. I was describing the early religious doctrine that the material universe was made of matter (as opposed to the later theory that the universe was made of “nothing”). As far as I am aware, scientists generally believe that the material universe WAS made from material and NOT created from “nothing”. (conservation of mass, etc).

When you said “I am an advocate of "creation out of something" interpretation of Genesis” then I assumed we actually AGREE in a material creation is more rational and, I think, more scientific as well. Early religion believed this as well. Thus I claim that it AGREES with science on this point.


T: Regarding Items #1 and #3 in your Post #20 to me: I pondered them and started several responses that dissatisfied me because, rereading them, I saw that if I had sent any of them, they’d only generate more questions and concerns on your part. Then last night, a light went on and I saw what I had been missing. Unfortunately, I didn’t write it down, so I’m going to have work at it, this morning, to record what is fading from my memory so quickly. Hopefully, this response (and any that follow) will clarify my views.

(a) I’m about 99% certain that you and I are in agreement that the current, prevalent interpretation of Genesis 1:1 [i.e. that God created our universe out of nothing] is incorrect. If you aren’t in agreement with me on “creatio ex nihilo”, stop me right there, because any discussion after that will be based on an irreconcilable difference and will be, therefore: inappropriate, unnecessary, and a waste of our time.

(To be continued, ... maybe)
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Terry;

The O.P. asked about : Eternal Progression In a Mormon Multiverse

Though I cannot respond to how speculative physics apply to ancient Christian religion, I was prepared to discuss early Judeo-Christian doctrines. Thus, I responded in posts #3-7.

Post # 3 I pointed out errors in base assumptions in the Blog that criticized LDS and ancient models of God, and introduced the model of an Anthropomorphic God in early Judeo-Christianity and their texts.

Post #4 I discussed the ancient descriptions and import of a GLORIFIED, anthropomorphic body and even appellations such as “the perfect man” or “father” that are distinct anthropomorphisms. Related examples continued into posts #5.

Posts #6 and #7 I introduced early textual example of “God-like” beings described in the early Judeo-Christian texts and the context that man is to progress in moral knowledge, civility and social graces as preparation for living in a social heaven in harmony and joy with others.

Post #11 – My post to Katzpur, regarded the concept that one of Adams purposes was to gain moral wisdom

Post #13 you explained you had certain concerns about having a conversation regarding these issues, said our interests in early Judeo-Christian textual religion differed, and said Einsteins’ relativity caused problems for Hagens’ papers.

Post #14 I explained my interest in early Judeo-Christian religion related to the restoration of that religion in these Latter Days (the LDS theology being representative of this restorational movement).

Post #15 You speculated regarding less confusion with LDS pre-teens with "literal" and "figurative/metaphorical" statements in Sunday School.

Post #16 I responded to some of your points and re-iterated that my interest was in less speculative, salvific doctrines of Christianity but not in theories of scientific physics. I used the doctrine of material creation out of matter as an example of “literality” in early texts (versus metaphorical language).

Post #17 you responded that you felt relatively “safe” to discuss LDS doctrines in the LDS Thread.

Post #18 you mentioned descriptions from early texts “shifted” your curiosity “from the persons of the Trinity to a few other matters.” You returned to a scientific/physics question and surmised : “it would seem to me to be unreasonable to claim that the Trinity of our multiverse is the only God in the Cosmos”

Post #20 I re-iterated my inability to adequately discuss speculative physics since I do not have sufficient background nor interest to do so in any meaningful way. While I recognize your claim regarding multiple Gods in a multiverse, and do not see any problem with the speculation, I cannot add much scientifically. I could only add the concept of Henotheism which is neither mono, nor polytheism but the ancient recognition of multiple Gods, only one of which is the highest and worthy of ultimate honor.

Post #21 you Introduced Benjamin Sommers’ theory of a single God, “driving” multiple Avatars (This is a gross over generalization I am offering).

Post #22 I responded by asking what application Sommers’ theory would have. His theory seems like an answer to a question no one has asked. I could not see what historical “problem” it solved; could not see how it offered any explanatory insight to any historical dilemma.

Post #25 you are asking if I believe in ex-hyle creation (i.e. creation from matter – which is, I believe, the scientific model).

The answer is “yes”. I hoped that my post #16 was clear that early Judeo-Christian textual descriptions describe material creation out of material that existed prior to ‘creation”, i.e. prior to that material being organized into planets, etc. I believe the early jews and Christians were correct, that the worlds are made of matter and were never made of "nothing".


I still feel the need to remind you that I have no expertise in speculative physics and so, if you want to discuss multiverses, or speculate about Einsteins theories, etc, then I am not going to be able to offer much insight. It simply isn’t my area of expertise. IF you are interested in the early and most authentic Judeo-Christian religion, or in a restoration of early, salvific doctrines, then I have a bit of knowledge and might be helpful.

Clear
φυσινεω
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
(1) C: However, it is my understanding that the “big bang” does not tell us where matter comes from (since the “big bang” assumes matter exists at the moment the "bang" occurs), but instead, attempts to explain why this original matter acts the way it does (e.g. an expanding universe caused by a “big bang”).

(3) C: It is my understanding that science AGREES with religion that the material universe originated with matter. Perhaps you misunderstood my claim. I was describing the early religious doctrine that the material universe was made of matter (as opposed to the later theory that the universe was made of “nothing”). As far as I am aware, scientists generally believe that the material universe WAS made from material and NOT created from “nothing”. (conservation of mass, etc).

When you said “I am an advocate of "creation out of something" interpretation of Genesis” then I assumed we actually AGREE in a material creation is more rational and, I think, more scientific as well. Early religion believed this as well. Thus I claim that it AGREES with science on this point.


T: (b) Assuming that we agree to eliminate the “ex nihilo”, what is the alternative? Previously, I asserted that, because ab aliquo [“from something”] is the opposite of ex nihilo, “creation from something” is the proper alternative to “creation from nothing”. You have confirmed that you agree with my assertion.
  • When you said “I am an advocate of "creation out of something" interpretation of Genesis” then I assumed we actually AGREE in a material creation is more rational ...
Had you stopped there, I’d have nothing more to say. But you didn’t. You finished the sentence by saying:
  • ... and, I think, more scientific as well.
To which I say: I don’t agree. I see a subtle but important distinction between:
  • You and I agreeing that saying “ 'God created the heavens and the earth from something' is rational" and
  • You and I agreeing that saying: “ ‘God created the heavens and the earth from something’ is more scientific.”
(a) You say that what you believe is consistent with LDS doctrine and I accept that.
(b) I know that what I believe is heresy in every Christian denomination and sect that I’ve ever been a part of and in a whole lot of others that I haven’t been a part of.
(c) Although you and I have not discussed the details of what we believe beyond the notion of “creation from something”, I know—from past experience—that saying what I believe in the presence of proponents of mainstream science brands me as a crackpot and a troll. I’ve also been told, in RF, by three people that what I believe has no basis in reality.
(d) Although you have admitted that you are not well-informed in “scientific matters” and although I readily admit to substantial ignorance in “scientific matters”, you believe that “creation from something” is doctrinally correct from an LDS standpoint and more scientific; and I am certain that “creation from something” is doctrinally incorrect among the Christian positions that I am most familiar with and not scientific in mainstream science.

You may well ask me: How is it that you (Terry) can believe something that you are certain is doctrinally incorrect? My answer: I can believe something that I am certain is doctrinally incorrect in prevalent Christian theology because of my conviction that the matter (a) is not in the Apostles Creed , (b) not relevant to the Gospel of and from Jesus Christ, and (c) not essential to Christian spiritual growth. I suspect that you may find that my belief and conviction erroneous, in which case you and I will have an irreconcilable difference.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
you believe that “creation from something” is doctrinally correct from an LDS standpoint and more scientific; and I am certain that “creation from something” is doctrinally incorrect among the Christian positions that I am most familiar with and not scientific in mainstream science..

Hi Terry;

Yes, the ancient Judeo-Christians believed in a MATERIAL creation from some form of pre-existing MATTER as the texts I quoted demonstrate. The LDS, who teach a restored version of this same doctrine also believe in a MATERIAL creation from some form of pre-existing MATTER.

If I understand your sentence above, you are claiming that "creation from something" (as opposed to creation from "nothing") is "not scientific in mainstream science..."?

If so, I am surprised in this change in scientific theory since I was taught in school that science tells us material things are made from material that has always had some sort of existence. This seemed to be the principle underlying the "conservation of matter", that is, matter is neither created nor destroyed but simply changes form. When I google it, I do not see that this basic law of Chemistry has been disproven in a way that can make "creation from nothing" scientifically correct. Has this basic law in science changed?

Though my mind can be changed with sufficient good data, I still believe the scientists that believe in material creation are correct in their views as opposed to any science that believes in creation from "nothing", and am still unaware of how this line of thought relates to the O.P. and the religious principle of eternal progress.

Is material creation relevant to the O.P. somehow?
Are you wanting to leave a religious discussion of religious principles and turn towards a discussion of scientific theories?

Clear
φυνεειω
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
In my Post #27, I wrote: "...you believe that “creation from something” is doctrinally correct from an LDS standpoint and more scientific; and I am certain that “creation from something” is doctrinally incorrect among the Christian positions that I am most familiar with and not scientific in mainstream science."

In your Post #28, you wrote: "If I understand your sentence above, you are claiming that "creation from something" (as opposed to creation from "nothing") is "not scientific in mainstream science..."?

I reply:

  • You and I agree that "creation from something" is rational and reasonable.
  • You believe that that claim is acceptable doctrine in LDS and is scientific.
  • I know that that claim is not acceptable in denominations and sects that I have been a part of and am familiar with is not scientific in mainstream science.
  • You do not understand why I say that.
  • The reason is because what you and I mean when we make that claim must be different.
  • If you think that what you have in mind when you make that claim would pass muster, when shared with well-informed mainstream scientists, , then well and good for you.
  • But I know that when I share what I have in mind when I make that claim with well-informed mainstream scientists, I will be accused of spouting nonsense and be banned and ignored thereafter.
I would have put more of my cards on the table for you, but I haven't because you have affirmed (more than once) that you're not really interested in looking at and comparing cards.
It's not a problem, though.

You wrote: " am still unaware of how this line of thought relates to the O.P. and the religious principle of eternal progress.
"

I reply: Seems to me that, like the motion and transformation of physical objects, a spirit's eternal progress must involve the motion and transformation of humans in space and time, no? Or have I failed to understand LDS eternal progress? The boundless, eternal space and time without beginning or end, in which physical objects move in my version of the Cosmos, are absolute and anathema in mainstream science. In mainstream science, space and time stretch and contract.

You wrote: "Are you wanting to leave a religious discussion of religious principles and turn towards a discussion of scientific theories?"

I reply: I'd rather discuss both intermittently, but if you're not interested in both, perhaps we should end our conversation and go our separate ways, amicably. In which case, I'll look for another Mormon, on-line or in person, who has the time and wherewithal to talk about our religions and scientific theories.
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
In my Post #27, I wrote: "...you believe that “creation from something” is doctrinally correct from an LDS standpoint and more scientific; and I am certain that “creation from something” is doctrinally incorrect among the Christian positions that I am most familiar with and not scientific in mainstream science."

In your Post #28, you wrote: "If I understand your sentence above, you are claiming that "creation from something" (as opposed to creation from "nothing") is "not scientific in mainstream science..."?

I reply:

  • You and I agree that "creation from something" is rational and reasonable.
  • You do not understand why I said what I did above.
  • I said what I said because we mean different things by the same claim.
  • If you think that what you have in mind when you make that claim would pass muster, when shared with well-informed mainstream scientists, , then well and good for you.
  • But I know that when I share what I have in mind when I make that claim with well-informed mainstream scientists, I will be accused of spouting nonsense and be banned and ignored thereafter.
I would have put more of my cards on the table for you, but I haven't because you have affirmed (more than once) that you're not really interested in looking at and comparing cards.
It's not a problem, though.

You wrote: " am still unaware of how this line of thought relates to the O.P. and the religious principle of eternal progress.
"

I reply: Seems to me that, like the motion and transformation of physical objects, a spirit's eternal progress must involve the motion and transformation of humans in space and time, no? Or have I failed to understand LDS eternal progress? Boundless space and time without beginning or end, in which physical objects move in my version of the Cosmos, are absolute and anathema in mainstream science. In mainstream science, space and time were "created" by the big bang and they stretch and contract.

You wrote: "Are you wanting to leave a religious discussion of religious principles and turn towards a discussion of scientific theories?"

I reply: I'd rather discuss both intermittently, but since you're not interested in both, perhaps we should end our conversation and go our separate ways, amicably. In which case, I'll look for another Mormon, on-line or in person, who has the time and wherewithal to talk about our religions and scientific theories.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@Terry Sampson

Hi Terry

1) I am having difficulty following some of your statements and explanations. It may be because I lack physics background or due to lack of clarity and data, I can't tell.

For example, : You say that the early Judeo-Christian model of “creation from something” is “rational and reasonable." I can follow this logic and it has an application to theology.

However, when you repeat your claim that “well-informed mainstream scientists” will accuse you of “spouting nonsense” and you would be “banned and ignored thereafter”, I can’t tell what you mean by telling this and cannot follow why it is relevant to a theological discussion OR a science discussion.

In your Post #27, Terry/You wrote: "...you believe that “creation from something” is doctrinally correct from an LDS standpoint and more scientific; and I am certain that “creation from something” is doctrinally incorrect among the Christian positions that I am most familiar with and not scientific in mainstream science."

In my Post #28, Clear replied: "If I understand your sentence above, you are claiming that "creation from something" (as opposed to creation from "nothing") is "not scientific in mainstream science..."?

Terry/you responded : “I would have put more of my cards on the table for you, but I haven't because you have affirmed (more than once) that you're not really interested in looking at and comparing cards.


Yes, this is correct. I think that, in a religious forum we should expect interest in religious themes in priority over interest in speculative physics. I don't have any "speculative physics cards" to play with. I only have religious data and religious interests in this forum.

Terrry, as I indicated, you are in a religious forum and I think we should be able to expect a religious application to any discussion here. I am interested in authentic Christianity, more so in authentic historical Judeo-Christianity and I come to a religious forum to discuss religion. While my medical career has science orientation, I don’t have enough theoretical PHYSICS background to intelligently discuss the stretching of time and space you referred to. I honestly don’t have interest (nor ability) in discussing the theory of physics in this forum unless it has significant religious utility that explains religious questions that are important to me.



2) REGARDING THE BIG BANG AND CREATION OF MATTER OUT OF "NOTHING"
You mention that in mainstream science, space and time were "created" by the big bang and they stretch and contract.

It is my understanding that speculative scientific theories and models are made with the hope of coming to a better understanding of existence but, as NASA notes regarding the Big Bang theory (on their web site) the many speculations and theories bring as many unanswered questions as they answer and scientists are trying to discover where their errors lie as much as discovering new facts.

It is my understanding that the “big bang” theory does NOT theorize that “nothing” existed before the “big bang” and then “matter exists” after the big bang. (you may correct me if Big Bang assumes “NOTHING” existed before “nothing” went “bang…)

Rather, “big bang” assumes what is called a “singularity” and starts with the condition of pre-existing matter in a different state (instead of beginning with “nothing”). In any case, I have little interest in discussing science in this theological forum unless it is nortparticularly speculative and it has application that answers important questions rather than Trivial religious applications.



3) CHANGING A DISCUSSION THE NATURE OF GOD AND MAN INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECULATIVE PHYSICS

Clear asked : "Are you wanting to leave a religious discussion of religious principles and turn towards a discussion of scientific theories?"
Terry Sampson replied : I reply: I'd rather discuss both intermittently, but since you're not interested in both, perhaps we should end our conversation and go our separate ways, amicably. In which case, I'll look for another Mormon, on-line or in person, who has the time and wherewithal to talk about our religions and scientific theories.

I think this is wise. I honestly don’t think I have enough knowledge and understanding about speculative science and speculative physics to be of much use to you in those fields. If you have religious questions that do not involve speculative scientific physics, then you might want to look me up again.


Terry, I apologize for my lack of interest in physics. I hope you can find someone who has both background and interest so that you can discuss science and physics in a way that is helpful and insightful for you.


See you Terry.


Clear
σεφισεω
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF FOUR


For LDS and other readers :

I felt that the “stand alone” principle that mortality is intended to be part of a process by which making learns to be more like God is not as understandable without further context.

So I wanted to make a comment about early Judeo-Christian worldviews that allow this principle of mortality moral and social tutoring to make more sense. IF the embodied spirits of mankind are to, ultimately be able to live in harmony and joy on a social basis, and are to sustain harmony and joy, then they must learn and master social/moral laws and personal characteristics which cause and sustain such a heavenly existence.

This mortal experience is part of this experiencial tutoring in both ancient Judeo-Christian texts and in the restoration of this theology (of which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the best example)


THE GREAT COSMIC PLAN OF HAPPINESS:

1) In the pre-creation time period, a loving God exists with finds himself among matter and spirits

The Prophet Enoch relates regarding God, that "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23. He says "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to such texts.


2) Because God was loving and intelligent, he instituted laws whereby spirits could advance and have joy and harmony as he has Johy.

The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (4Q255-264)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Quote: ....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1).

The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations).

Diogenes reaffirms the LDS restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)

Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. Quote: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘

Who among these spirits viewing this spectacle would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect? It is of such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies : Quote: " At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)

Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan: Quote:"At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

This is the testimony of Old Testament Enoch, it is the testimony of New testament Diogenes. It is the testimony of Joseph Smith. The parallels between the LDS restoration and the ancient teachings regarding the plan of salvation and the atonement continue even in discrete details the ancients taught. For example:



3) Our relationship have with God creates a situation to advance in wisdom

The ancient texts form the foundation for the relationship of these various spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits” (as they called “The Lord God”). For example (though it's simply a gloss over what are deep concepts)

A) : The physical creation was accomplished in order to allow men to advance in knowledge:
Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles”) out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand”) to Administrate over this material creation of an earth which he will populate with embodied spirits for their education and testing.

For example : The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : “...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).

The physical creation of ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). From chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed : Quote: “And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2).

And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation. Quote: I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42).

I think it is this closely unified and joint administration that contributes to much of the later confusion between Father and Son in later doctrines though the early texts it is taught that they are two individuals that are profoundly unified in PURPOSE.

POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF FOUR



B) . The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge:

It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge. He says Quote: “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. 2 Baruch 21:16-17

Changeable willful spirits were given a choice : In the ancient accounts, the spirits of men were allowed to choose to take part in this plan, just as they are allowed to choose what they will do in this life. I’ll skip the “war in heaven” and the controversy with Lucifer that was a central part of it and simply mention that there were recalcitrant spirits of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266) “ still, even of the less valiant spirits they said :he taught them through those anointed by the Holy Spirit…”.

There were important principles underlying this fairness. For example, though God knows their nature, they needed to discover their own nature. God said : Quote: “And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘This is good for you, but that is bad’; ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature.”... (2 enoch 30:15-16)

Even those who are to remain unrewarded, are to learn why they remained unrewarded. “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6).

This principle the ancient taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…” (geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but it was also true of the good and valiant spirits as well. Jeremiah the prophet was told "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

Thus, God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the “covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: “For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3)

Thus the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll that speaks of this plan to “refine them” (the spirits of men) was not forced upon anyone, but all who are here, agreed beforehand, to come to this life.

Since studying the LDS restoration of Ancient and precious things and offering my observations and comparisons to the ancient teachings of the Jews and Christians, I feel like we are necessarily skipping over deep and portentous doctrines, like a rock, skipping across the surface of deep doctrinal waters, touching only lightly upon a point here and there.



4) The experiential tutoring in this life allows for the accumulation of moral and social wisdom which form the basis of glory and morally guided power and intelligence fit for glorified beings that can inhabit a social heaven in harmony and joy.


There are important principles underlying this statement : For example

A) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
B) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits
C) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us
D) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us




A) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING

Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the principles God is trying to teach them. Thus Clement II teaches that “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Thus Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.(Ig-eph 3:1) The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”.

New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life. He taught : Quote: “But the tree of knowledge does not kill, on the contrary, disobedience kills. For it is not without significance that the scriptures record that God in the beginning planted a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the midst of Paradise, thereby revealing that (eternal) life is through knowledge...For there is neither life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life; therefore each tree stands planted near the other. (Diog 12:2-3)

It is significant that early accounts call Eden’s tree of “knowledge”, the tree of wisdom. In Enoch’s vision of heaven he says : ... And the tree of wisdom, of which one eats and knows great wisdom, (was among them)....This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened...” (1Enoch 32:6) And, importantly, the type of wisdom that is gained, includes the type of moral knowledge man was sent here to learn (“there is no [eternal] life without knowledge”).



B) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits

Not all TYPES of knowledge have equal value in learning principles that will bring us joy and harmony in the eternities. The ORDER in which we learn principles is important as well. For example, learning moral laws which underlie and support social harmony are more important than knowledge of how to wage successful war against an another. Learning how to hurt another person, before learning patience to control that knowledge will still not result in joy and harmony, but may result in sadness and disharmony.

When Clement taught that “through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”, he was speaking primarily of moral principles that support a more exalted and glorified existence (i.e. moral and social rules of living in joy and harmony in heaven).

For example: They ancient were taught to learn UNITY (A basic principle necessary for a joyful social heavenly existence)

“Focus on unity, for there is nothing better” (Polycarp 1:2). “...let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy...let all of you run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2) For example, when congregations achieved unity, Ignatius honors them : Quote: “I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity. (Ign to eph 5:1)

This was NOT taught simply to the Christians, but to the Jews as well. For example, in the Dead Sea Scroll “CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION” (1QS, 4Q, 5Q), the translators decided not to use the word “community” throughout the translation to describe this group, but rather they used one of the society’s most common self-designations: “YACHAD”, which means “unity”. It was after all, the moral ideal they sought to achieve and the word they used to describe themselves and their higher aspirations.

This is no different than the christian teaching Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united ....with those who lead..” (Ign to Mag 6:2). The principle of UNITY and HARMONY were principles that ALL disciples were taught just as “ the archangels who are over the angels...harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly...” (2nd Enoch 19:3).

If spirits could NOT learn to overcome their undisciplined impulses, there could BE no harmony in heaven, or on earth). This was the pattern Jesus and the Apostles set. Just as Jesus was obedient to HIS Father, the church was to be obedient to their authorities. Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual". (Ign to Mag 13:2).

The concept of obedience, and “unity” and “oneness” is woven throughout all the ancient texts. When a man leaves his parents he is to become “one” (unified) with his wife (Gen 2:24) to the point that Jesus says that the man and his wife are no longer “twain” but are “oneflesh (matt 19:6). Jesus requests of his Father regarding his disciples that he had given them the glory that you [the Lord God] gave me, that they may be one as we are one “(NIV jn 17:23). The same unity of which Jesus has with his Father, the disciples were also to achieve (and all the rest of us as far as we are able to emulate Jesus and the disciples). For example: Jesus prays in Jn 17:20, I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”,

If you remove the adherence to this principle of unity, the sociality in heaven cannot BE, nor REMAIN “unified” and “harmonious”. And all who live there MUST live this principle that God is attempting to teach man.

If the atonement is to bring men back to the presence of God, in a more exalted condition; able to live in a holy heaven, then the atonement must also have a mechanism to teach men to live the principles of a heavenly existence. The LDS restoration of these ancient teachings makes clear these ancient teachings regarding what God is doing with man and their relationship to the Atonement of our Savior, Jesus Christ.



POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE OF FOUR

I believe that the LDS return to ancient principles of learning religious principles is important in understanding what God is doing with man, and man’s role and responsibility to the atonement. One may, for example, compare the modern christian theory that "Grace renders repentance obsolete" to the earliest Christian Doctrines regarding repentance. The ancient and authentic principle of repentance acts as a "reality check" to all modern theories.

C) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us

Repentance, as a true and authentic early Christian principle is often mis-characterized by those who do not understand it, or those wanting to discredit it. Repentance, as a process of "doing better" (and the process of change it entails) is not an "all or nothing" proposition. One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache counsels : "If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." (Didache 6:2) Since we all are imperfect, we all "do what we can". The LDS seem to understand and correctly apply this concept to the ultimate goal of perfection.

The early Christians taught that, however poorly we do it, we are meant to try to be more like God. For example: The very first thing Ignatius teaches the Christians in Ephesus (verse ONE) is "You are the imitators of God" (Ignatius 1:1). This is NOT a complicated principle and it never was. Diogenes teaches the Christians that Quote: "By loving him you will be an imitator of his goodness. And do not be surprised that a person can become an imitator of God; he can, if God is willing....But whoever takes upon himself his neighbor’s burden, whoever wishes to benefit another who is worse off in something in which he himself is better off, whoever provides to those in need things that he has received from God, and thus becomes a god to those who receive them, this one is an imitator of God." Diog 10:6)

We may "poorly" imitate God, yet still, we are to "imitate God" and be more like him. However, we cannot accomplish imitation without repentance, since, (as Clement taught the earliest Christian Saints), repentance was related to the ability to "...accept correction" and that "it unites us with the will of God" (1Clement 56:2).

Repentance was not a new principle inaugurated by ancient Christians. Rather the Christians taught that "repentance [was] taught in all generations" (1st Clement 7:5-7) . Similarly, the lds restore and re-affirm Repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning to imitate God. It restores Repentance to it’s role in the process of understanding, and advancement and learning to be more like him.

In Hermas’ vision, the angel speaking to Hermas says "...I give understanding to all who repent. Or don’t you, think" he said, "that this very act of repentance is itself understanding? To repent, " he continued, "is great understanding. For the man who has sinned understands that he has done evil in the Lord’s presence, and the act which he committed enters his heart, and he repents and no longer does evil, but does good lavishly, and he humbles his own soul..." (Hermas 30:2) Repentance is not simply a punishment of self, but rather a process of acquiring knowledge, acquiring understanding; acquiring new attitudes and new and better habits of interaction. It is a blessing to men.

It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians : Quote:"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient " (Diog 9:1)

It is clear that God allows men to make mistakes, not because he approved of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creation. Diogenes continues : Quote:"...because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of (eternal) life... having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (Diog 9:1)

Thus God is creating moral improvement by this process (and at the same time demonstrating our inabilities and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do).

The Jews also taught that God allows evil for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves his ultimate purpose). The Jews taught :
Quote: " Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages [of eternity]. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation. (1QS, 4Q, 5Q "Jewish Charter")

Though evil exists, it serves it’s purpose in HIS plan and he controls and appoints it’s limits. It is not "chess set theology" where God plays man and then punishes him for "bad moves", but rather, man is allowed his own choice and man appoints his own desires regarding evil.

The LDS have restored the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. This restoration does not change evil. But it explains it and its relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?".
 
This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the similar answer to Ezra’s ancient question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? " The ancient answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains that Quote:"There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place...and there is only one path... If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the danger set before him? ..."And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; the are few and evil, full of dangers...But the entrances of the greater world are broad and save, and really yield the fruit of immortality. Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them..." (4th Ezra 7:3-25)



D) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us

JUDGEMENT AS A METHOD OF SIEVING OR SEPARATION SPIRITS OF DIFFERING MORAL INTELLIGENCE INTO VARIOUS LEVELS


1) Heavenly unity and joy cannot be sustained unless the inhabitants of heaven obey principles upon which joy and unity exist and are sustained.  A judgment and separation between those willing and able to live moral laws and those who are not willing and able must occur.

From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."

Enoch, compares the judgement as a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgement according to a scale. Without this doctrine, (which some of later christianity abandoned), the "light switch" condemnation of modern Christianity cannot be made fair. The ancient doctrine however, once re-adopted, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgement.

The early christians taught regarding Heaven : Quote:"... those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundred fold, and those who bring forth sixty fold, and those who bring forth thirty fold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city. For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, "In my Father’s house there are many rooms"; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son finally yielding his work to the Father, as it is also said by the apostle: "For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 36:1-2)


POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FOUR OF FOUR

The ancients taught that during the process of judgement, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their : Quote: "...bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together .... (Geninza A+B 4Q)

The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become most like God in the judgement and resurrection. The Dead Sea Scroll "SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, (4Q, 11Q, Masada Fragment 367), describes the ancient Jewish teaching regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny : Quote: "For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, .... that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes …who take their stand in the temples of the king…

The early Christians and Jews are very descriptive of the destiny of those who actually do become successful "imitators" of God to the point of becoming "Godlike". For example: The jews of 4Q, 11Q, Masada were very descriptive in this regard : Quote:
"Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings-His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.

The value of the earliest Judao-christian texts is that they serve both as a witness to early Judao-Christian interpretations of the Gospel message and they are often clear and detailed in their descriptions of early Judao-Christian interpretations and beliefs. The LDS interpretation of foundational principles can find both close parallels and is quite comfortable among the early Judao-christian orthodoxy.

I also apologize for given such a long example, but it is really just an overview (my prior multiple posts on pre-mortal existence is narrowed to just 4 lines in this post - other principles are similarly condensed).


In any case, all of this early theology that has been restored is summed up by Joseph Smith when he said : Quote: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. - Joseph Smith "

On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". My summation is simply repeating what he said and adding early Judeo-Christian textual examples.


I wish you a great spiritual journey as we all decide which directions our various journeys will take us.

Clear
σεσισιω
 
Last edited:
Top