Three Heavens or Degrees of Glory

[_ClarkGoble]

Always fun when one has no constraints to make up BS to fit what they want to believe. Maybe I should start taking Lord of the Rings more seriously as history.

I think it's more about what we know implying constraints on what we believe. Honest people should make those adjustments. However there's then a reasonable range of possible beliefs. It's not "making up...to fit what they want to believe." Now of course if you come from the view people should only believe in what has been reasonably established scientifically that's fine. Although there are problems with that approach as well.

It presupposes each individual that makes it to the highest degree of the celestial gets to have offspring, and that more than one of those becomes exalted having offspring themselves and so on whether or not this happens in the same universe or within a multiverse.

Yes. And of course one can always challenge those presuppositions as some theological writers like Blake Ostler have.

While that's a popular view there's really no evidence for it and arguably some evidence that creation is a collective endeavor. In that case it'd be linear.

Please elaborate here. I have no idea what this means. I am referring to creation being a collective endeavor in reference to giving birth to offspring and how that makes the population growth of gods linear.

Continuation of seed could involve adoption rather than spirit birth. That's becoming a more popular position among theological thinkers. (Primarily due to the lack of explicit doctrine on spirit birth until Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and others start pushing it after the martyrdom)

All I'm really saying is that it could be either linear or exponential. Most assume the latter but that's not the only possibility. In either case, as I mentioned earlier, that becomes irrelevant when we're dealing with infinite sets. So in the more traditional sense where everyone becomes their own God to their own creation we might have an exponential like relationship except that creation never ends so it's really not exponential as one is not necessarily dealing with finite numbers. Put an other way, does the individual God the Father who created us have at this time a finite or infinite number of offspring (either by adoption or birth) That question highlights the issues.

An ever increasing rate of consumption of matter for god bodies is not possible in a single universe.

Depends upon whether the size and energy in the universe is increasing at a sufficient rate. Most evidence for our universe presumes the energy isn't, so a collapse will happen. It's that collapse that's the bigger theological issue (in my opinion). However if resurrected beings need not stay in the same universe then obviously that's less of an issue.

The problem is the idea that the manner in which the matter of one's body reacts to the same physical stimulus depends upon righteousness or a lack thereof.

That could be a primary or secondary effect. That is what is the role of the mind in the reaction? But if could also be some feedback to the spirit/soul and whatever mind-like aspects it has.

I'd also like a primer on how glorified resurrected bodies fit in with the standard model of particle physics - if you have the time.

Again not sure what you're asking. We don't know what type of matter the bodies are made of so it's hard to say much. We're also not entirely clear if the standard model particles even covers the types of matter physicists can measure such as dark matter.

So the book of Moses is deprecated now?

No. But it doesn't follow that the Book of Moses was a restoration of an original text nor that it was complete in the sense of correcting every bit of Genesis that remains in the Book of Moses. Indeed there are compelling reasons to think it's not. Both because of Joseph's later work on Genesis (say the treatment of Genesis 1 in the King Follet Discourse) but also simply due to looking at the nature of the JST in total. If the primary function of the JST isn't to restore a pure text had by Jews at some point but to use a 2cd century text of Genesis that was had in a flawed translation (KJV) and primarily focus on reference (what the text is about) rather than the original text then I don't think there's much problem. As I think I mentioned while Robert Matthews vacillated in how he viewed the JST, often treating it as restoring text, I think since the 90's that theory has been difficult to support. The obvious argument for that position are the continued changes to the text after the initial "translation" and places where he translated the text twice.

My point is just that how we approach the JST including the Book of Mose matters. Often the presuppositions we bring for exegesis are themselves not argued for. For instance, many read Moses 2 in light of Moses 1 and use it to argue for an unity of the Torah. Whereas I think a more defensible reading is that Moses 1 is a separate revelation and not a statement on Genesis - Deuteronomy.

[_Themis]

I think it's more about what we know implying constraints on what we believe. Honest people should make those adjustments. However there's then a reasonable range of possible beliefs. It's not "making up...to fit what they want to believe." Now of course if you come from the view people should only believe in what has been reasonably established scientifically that's fine. Although there are problems with that approach as well.

LOL The stuff you have come up with is certainly not being constrained by what you know. The idea that a human had no DNA until after the fall is making things up. You don't have any reasonable evidence, even from LDS teachings, to speculate this.

[_ClarkGoble]

LOL The stuff you have come up with is certainly not being constrained by what you know. The idea that a human had no DNA until after the fall is making things up. You don't have any reasonable evidence, even from LDS teachings, to speculate this.

I'm certainly doing a bit of speculation. However it's speculation based upon the common normative belief that Adam and Eve's bodies before the fall were terrestrial not telestial bodies. Nothing died. That means we're not dealing with a body that functions the way human DNA functions. Really not a not of speculation in there just noting the common belief of a change in body and what DNA's functioning involves.

Of course you can dismiss that as having no scientific evidence and I'd agree entirely. I'm just noting the implications of existing beliefs. I'm not giving reasons to accept such beliefs.

[_Themis]

I'm certainly doing a bit of speculation. However it's speculation based upon the common normative belief that Adam and Eve's bodies before the fall were terrestrial not telestial bodies. Nothing died. That means we're not dealing with a body that functions the way human DNA functions. Really not a not of speculation in there just noting the common belief of a change in body and what DNA's functioning involves.

Of course you can dismiss that as having no scientific evidence and I'd agree entirely. I'm just noting the implications of existing beliefs. I'm not giving reasons to accept such beliefs.

You are assuming DNA cannot be terrestrial based on nothing.

[_ClarkGoble]

LOL The stuff you have come up with is certainly not being constrained by what you know. The idea that a human had no DNA until after the fall is making things up. You don't have any reasonable evidence, even from LDS teachings, to speculate this.

DNA is an ongoing chemical reaction that entails death - either of cells or by cancer or so forth. That's just inherent to the chemistry. That's a contradiction to the descriptions of Adam and Eve prior to the fall. So it acts as a constraint. That's not just "making stuff up." It's just the nature of life on earth. That the fall entailed adopting DNA likewise is entailed by them being human and apparently having children. So I guess I'm not clear where the problem is, but I'm open to hear.

The idea of the fall being a move from one world to an other is speculative, but it's speculation well within the normative history of Mormon thought. So I'm not making that up either. There's a strong vein of Mormon thought, not as popular but well established that Adam and Eve didn't have blood before the fall. Again to be clear I'm looking at the implications of the range of doctrines within normative Mormonism and not pushing one model.

Now from a skeptical naturalistic perspective it's all nonsense. But that seems a different issue from "making things up."

[_Themis]

DNA is an ongoing chemical reaction that entails death - either of cells or by cancer or so forth. That's just inherent to the chemistry.

That's an inaccurate assumption of the chemistry. There is a species that can reverse aging and it still has DNA so you could do the kind of speculation you are doing and suggest a DNA code that does not allow one to age. Not that any of the speculation on this religious issue makes sense.

[_spotlight]

DNA is an ongoing chemical reaction that entails death - either of cells or by cancer or so forth. That's just inherent to the chemistry. That's a contradiction to the descriptions of Adam and Eve prior to the fall. So it acts as a constraint. That's not just "making stuff up."

There is no evidence that an actual Adam existed so it cannot be a constraint. That's like saying a flyby mission failed to locate Russell's teapot so I know it looked in the wrong location.

So when Adam "fell" how does he get his DNA in the process and why is it loaded with endogenous retroviruses that show his fallen body has evolved from a common ancestor with other apes?

[_ClarkGoble]

There is no evidence that an actual Adam existed so it cannot be a constraint.

Kind of missing the forest for the trees aren't you?

[_Themis]

Now from a skeptical naturalistic perspective it's all nonsense. But that seems a different issue from "making things up."

Once you leave a naturalistic perspective you have fully entered the make believe world. The only constraint you have there is the church has to be true and Joseph a prophet of God. This is why you come up with things like no DNA. That's a huge change to make to a body. How about cells. Does the terrestrial body need to breath If not then no need for lungs. The reason Humans look the way we do is because of all these necessities to life. Take them away and you will have a very different looking being.

Another problem is from your posts you seem like someone fairly open to thinking certain statements from Joseph are speculations, so when you speculate you could be speculating on speculations. Fun to do I suppose but not really useful. Oh the hours wasted in life speculating in the make believe world. When I was evaluating certain issues with Mormonism I approached them with I want to know the truth. Not something a lot of Mormons, or people in other religions, will do. This means going where the evidence leads and a willingness to change if new evidence comes forward showing a different conclusion. Not something those who approach these issues with the church has to be true are willing to do.

[_spotlight]

There is no evidence that an actual Adam existed so it cannot be a constraint.

Kind of missing the forest for the trees aren't you?

Oh sure, if you don't want to get into any details you can pretty much gloss over anything to hand wave it away.

ETA: No comment about the endogenous retroviruses? The human race is not any evidence of an Adam, Clark. It is evidence of evolution and common ancestry with the rest of the apes.