According to Brother Joe'...The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's...' [Doctrines and Covenants 130:22]
So how do the brethren explain '...The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation...'(Colossians 1:15)

And didn't Joe see two distinct personnages in the Sacred Grove? (OK he was always a little sketchy on the details)

And which of these two ever said he was God? Huh?

Yeah. That's true. One was just Jesus and the other merely called him "son". So, it was Jesus and Jesus's dad.

“how do the brethren explain '...The Son is the image of the invisible God’”

Never mind the brethren, how does anyone explain this nonsensical phrase? How can someone be the ‘image’ of someone who’s invisible without invisible themselves?

The Bible is just as crazy as the Book of Mormon, it’s just been around longer.

Real simple: Vampires.

They can't see themselves in mirrors so are invisible that way even though you can see them.

Makes as much sense as all that awesome Power a Deacon has.

TBMs wouldn't find it hard at all. They would respond that divine or spirit "matter" is more refined or purer than the substances that make up the visible earth, and therefore invisible to us.

BY taught that the spirit world is here on the earth, like an overlay, but we simply can't see it (JOD 3:369). Same with the angels recording our lives; they're invisible to us. Same with our dead ancestors; they're all here but we can't see them unless god allows it.

An omnipotent god ought to be able to make himself visible or invisible at will. That particular argument won't shake the faith of any mormon.

----

Brigham Young quote from JOD:
"When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham’s bosom. No, not any where nigh there, but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of this organized earth? No, they do not. They are brought forth upon this earth, for the express purpose of inhabiting it to all eternity. Where else are you going? No where else, only as you may be permitted."

Good explainer. Mormon cosmology...words fail me.

Dallin Ox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TBMs wouldn't find it hard at all. They would
> respond that divine or spirit "matter" is more
> refined or purer than the substances that make up
> the visible earth, and therefore invisible to us.
>
> BY taught that the spirit world is here on the
> earth, like an overlay, but we simply can't see it
> (JOD 3:369). Same with the angels recording our
> lives; they're invisible to us. Same with our dead
> ancestors; they're all here but we can't see them
> unless god allows it.
>
> An omnipotent god ought to be able to make himself
> visible or invisible at will. That particular
> argument won't shake the faith of any mormon.
>
> ----
>
> Brigham Young quote from JOD:
> "When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you
> going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going
> into Abraham’s bosom. No, not any where nigh
> there, but into the spirit world. Where is the
> spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and
> evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they
> both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go
> to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries
> of this organized earth? No, they do not. They are
> brought forth upon this earth, for the express
> purpose of inhabiting it to all eternity. Where
> else are you going? No where else, only as you may
> be permitted."
when you lay down this tabernacle IT IS OVER

Perdition Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to Brother Joe'...The Father has a body
> of flesh and bones as tangible as man's...'
> So how do the brethren explain '...The Son is the
> image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
> creation...'(Colossians 1:15)


Don't TBMs just say that the passage from Colossians is "mistranslated"?


> And didn't Joe see two distinct personnages in the
> Sacred Grove?


Which version?


> (OK he was always a little sketchy
> on the details)


Exactly!

There certainly are a lot of first visions available (9 separate accounts at a minimum) But Joe had a lot on his mind. Consistency was never his strong point.

Recall the Lectures on Faith, which said Jesus has a body of flesh and bone but God is a spirit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2021 05:32PM by Lot's Wife.

And the Holy Ghost was their collective mind.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

42, of course.

Yeah, but is that base 5, base 10, or base 200?

In fact, how many bases can fit on the head of a pin?

Allow me a serious thought on this matter of "image and likeness of God." LDS and Christian Science make identical, yet polar opposite, errors. That's contradictory; please bear with me.

The Mormon take is: "Since humans are 'flesh and bone,' and made in the image and likeness of God, then GOD must also be flesh and bone. Applying Christ's statement, "God is a spirit" (John 4:24) puts them in a convoluted position. So you get "the Father is a spirit," no wait, he's an exalted man, no he's a spirit but the Son is flesh and bone, on the other hand...

Etc. etc. etc.

The Christian Scientists accept "God is a spirit", and reason: "Since God is 'spirit,' and Man is made in His image and likeness, then Mankind is also 'spiritual.' Therefore, Mankind is not a physical being, he is a spiritual being--the physical is not 'really real,' it is am illusion--it doesn't 'really' exist!"

So: in spite of the Biblical patina, Christian Science has more in common with Eastern metaphysics, regarding the realm of physical matter (quarks, microbes, mammals, galaxies--everyTHING) as illusory, the result of erroneous, fallen "material (not spiritual) thought."

So using the same spurious logic, LDS & CS come to opposite, and equally flawed, conclusions.

God is, indeed, a spirit, but that does not mean that His physical creation is made of the same "stuff" that He is. An analogy: I have just put down my thoughts on this website. My thoughts have a certain abstract reality. From my fingertips, they became electronic data, were transmitted through various circuits, and now appear to you as pixels on a screen. What your eyes are now reading is a kind of idea or "image," but are not the ontological "stuff" that originated in my mind. Thus, the Creation (and us creatures!) God "spoke" into existence is not the same "stuff" as what He is made of.

Metaphysics--such fun!

The pantheists might argue that your mind is basically God’s mind on drugs. The PEAR experiments showed that matter is subject to non-local effects, but it seems to me that our entire Universe, like all Universes, is a non-local effect. Essentially a thought in the mind of God. Nobody can conceptualize a God that is everywhere and everywhen, except maybe Taoists, so we substitute a divine monarch. The substitution works because in the realm of faith, subjective reality matters more than the actual details.

Mary Baker Eddy went to some length on that matter, and even wrote a pamphlet late in her life (1909), "Christian Science Versus Pantheism." Although she used personal pronouns ("He," "Thou/Thy" etc.) regarding Deity, as Christians do, her concept of God is ultimately an impersonal Brahmin-like oversoul, as demonstrated by her seven synonyms for God, Life, Truth, Love, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Mind. That is, God is not intelligent--God is Intelligence, and so on.

Regarding that the human mind cannot conceive a God who is everywhere and everywhen, you have a point. Faith does mean accepting that there are things our 3.3. pounds of gray matter cannot comprehend. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, the difference between God and us is akin to us and a garden slug. Paul addresses this with his verse, "“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (I Cor. 2:9). And just for the record, I take "streets of gold," and "gates of pearl" as poetic imagery for post-human existence of surpassing value and beauty.

Why base 16, of course. God gets his kicks...on Route 66*.

We will eventually find out that God and reality in general is just a big quantum computer running us as a universal simulation.

42 hexadecimal = 66 dec

There are people on this site who will hang you by piano wire for implying a deterministic universe. To black-and-white thinkers there are only 10 solutions to the mystery of the cosmos.

11 Dimensions is where the math starts to add up, according to this year’s Nobel Prize physicist, Roger Penrose,
3 of which we can perceive, detect. 4 if you count time.
12 is where time starts to run backwards.
Anti matter is just matter going backwards in time.
The universe is super symmetrical and paradoxically, singularity is at the center of everything, infinitely dense and smaller than a god particle,
And there is a 4D universe at the center of every black hole.
According to string theory.

Yes, yes. You’ve told us that many times. But how can 42 be 66?

And how can 46 likewise be both 66 and 42?

And 36. Why isn’t 36 as valid as 66 for a species that barely started wearing shoes?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 11 Dimensions is where the math starts to add up,
> according to this year’s Nobel Prize physicist,
> Roger Penrose,
> 3 of which we can perceive, detect. 4 if you count
> time.
> 12 is where time starts to run backwards.
> Anti matter is just matter going backwards in
> time.
> The universe is super symmetrical and
> paradoxically, singularity is at the center of
> everything, infinitely dense and smaller than a
> god particle,
> And there is a 4D universe at the center of every
> black hole.
> According to string theory.

Your statement here is a gross misrepresentation of Roger Penrose's views on multiple dimensions and String Theory; whose views on mathematical physics (and consciousness) I have been studying for over 30 years. (Not always with full understanding!)

The interested reader should read Penrose's 2004 book, Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (all 1000 +) pages (mathematics included) in order to try to get some understanding of modern mathematical physics as a layperson; including his own views and assessments. In the meantime, the clip below should be helpful in clarifying his views regarding String Theory and multiple dimensions--which are generally negative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liGDVRavc0Q

Stephen Hawking thought M theory was our best candidate for a theory of everything.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-stephen-hawking-pinned-m-theory-fully.html
Penrose is still pushing his 50yo Twistor theory as a theory of everything, even though it is not as widely accepted by other scientists.

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow presented this M-Theory preference in their 2010 book The Grand Design. They argued in that book that M-theory was indeed the best candidate for a TOE. However, in so doing, they also relied upon an 11 dimensional universe, and a vast multiverse to explain why our universe has natural laws and properties conducive to life. (Anthropic principle) There is no evidence for either views, and the last time I checked physical evidence was still the confirmation requirement of a physical theory.

Remember what Hawking said at the end of his book, A Brief History of Time, about TOE theories?

"[I]f we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God."

What's still interesting about this quote is first, M-Theory most certainly does not qualify in its simplicity according to this definition. Second, if there really is a TOE, it would not only imply "the mind of God" as a metaphor, it would imply the mind of God as a reality--unless you postulated vast universes of which again there is no evidence!

Suggesting that String Theory or M-Theory is "the best candidate for a theory of everything," is like saying Christianity is our best candidate for a theory of the existence of God. In both cases the evidence is entirely lacking, and the "story" itself is everything; whether the story is couched in mathematics or the language of theology.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suggesting that String Theory or M-Theory is "the
> best candidate for a theory of everything," is
> like saying Christianity is our best candidate for
> a theory of the existence of God. In both cases
> the evidence is entirely lacking, and the "story"
> itself is everything; whether the story is couched
> in mathematics or the language of theology.

Love this. It is so elegant an analogy.

Like the article I posted says,”During the second string revolution, in 1995, physicists proposed that the five consistent string theories are actually only different faces of a unique theory which lives in eleven spacetime dimensions and is known as M-theory. It includes each of the string theories in different physical contexts, but is still valid for all of them. This extremely fascinating picture has led most theoretical physicists to believe in M-theory as the theory of everything – it is also more mathematically consistent than other candidate theories.”

You forgot this quote from your linked article:

"Nevertheless, so far M-theory has struggled in producing predictions that can be tested by experiments. Supersymmetry is currently being tested at the Large Hadron Collider. If scientists do find evidence of superpartners, that would ultimately strengthen M-theory. But it still remains a challenge for current theoretical physicists to produce testable predictions and for experimental physicists to set up experiments to test them."

Like I said, no experimental evidence! And supersymmetry--a major assumption of M-Theory--has failed to be confirmed after substantial effort.

In short, see my analogy above.

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don’t.

Beyond a certain point, understanding a complex theory and pretending to understand a complex theory are indistinguishable.

This is all The Cat needs to know.

Imaginary characters can have any kind of body you want them to have.

You can even endow them with very large thumbs.

“This is my beloved son, with opposable thumbs. Hear him.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2021 06:22AM by bradley.

Whenever I heard someone say"flesh and blood" they were always corrected and told "flesh and bone". For some reason, God doesn't seem to have blood.

Anyone?

"The Son is the image of the invisible God"

Jesus is the original Invisible Man.