LDS Joseph Smith and the Astronomers

Ironhold · Nov 14, 2020

Dale said:
Peter: "Well some years later, what do you know, a scientist/archeologist finds gold plates in Central America and to his utter surprise there was writing on them. And many more have been found since that first discovery. Huh, was JS was right in 1830? Was science wrong in 1830?"

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of it. The encyclopedia says that the Aztecs wrote on paper. Yes, we know they made some inscriptions in stone. I have never heard of any significant amount of writing by Aztecs/Mayans/Toltecs etc being done on gold. Incidentally, I have a book, Archaeological Mexico, published by the Mexican government, that would mention something like that.

Tumbaga - Wikipedia

Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.

Does your work mention anything about it?

Dale · Nov 14, 2020

Ironhold said:
Tumbaga - Wikipedia

Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.

Does your work mention anything about it?

Wikipedia says nothing about writing on tumbaga.

The book I mentioned is about archaeological ruins. It does not focus on gold. it does not focus on writings of the Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs, or other central American peoples.

He is the way · Nov 14, 2020

mmksparbud said:
Well that's about the silliest most contradictory statement I've ever heard. He created all things. He created all the planets and stars and everything on them. And He did not require anything to be there first. Your God needs stuff to have already been in existence. Ours does not. You claim that matter has always existed---is matter God? Does it have intelligence? God is spirit, we have no idea what they (God)are made of so your statement is totally irrelevant. That statement has ben made 100's of times and never gains in intelligence.

So you are saying that God is immaterial? I believe God has a form:

(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 27)

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

;

mmksparbud · Nov 14, 2020

He is the way said:
So you are saying that God is immaterial? I believe God has a form:

(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 27)

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ;

You can believe whatever you want. The bible does not say anything definitive, Jesus said He is spirit.
I do not claim to have the knowledge of what God is and how He was out there before there was any planets or anything in the vast universe. We are made in His image. Like I've pointed out---a corncob doll is made in our image so is Barbie. They are, however, not made clones of ourselves. There are things said about His hands and back parts and eyes, but what kind of eyes? We can not see certain things, have no capacity for it, such as UV lights, our ears can not hear like a dogs, our noses can not smell like a dogs -- nobody as yet understands a thing about Him really, least of all JS.
He is all that is male and all that is female, that is what the Jewish language has described Him. Not as a separate male or female. You can say He is whatever your puny little brain can come up with, our brains do not have the capacity to comprehend what He truly is, He is light and fire, so bright that angels stand in front of Him with wings outstretched to block His light even from other angels. No sinful man can look upon Him in His full glory and live and neither could JS. He never saw Him. Even Moses, God was always veiled though He spoke to Him face to face---which means, not in dreams or visions, but even he could not see Him unveiled and live. Sin can not live in His presence. So lease do not even try to tell me you know what He is, that is laughable.

He is the way · Nov 14, 2020

mmksparbud said:
You can believe whatever you want. The bible does not say anything definitive, Jesus said He is spirit.
I do not claim to have the knowledge of what God is and how He was out there before there was any planets or anything in the vast universe. We are made in His image. Like I've pointed out---a corncob doll is made in our image so is Barbie. They are, however, not made clones of ourselves. There are things said about His hands and back parts and eyes, but what kind of eyes? We can not see certain things, have no capacity for it, such as UV lights, our ears can not hear like a dogs, our noses can not smell like a dogs -- nobody as yet understands a thing about Him really, least of all JS.
He is all that is male and all that is female, that is what the Jewish language has described Him. Not as a separate male or female. You can say He is whatever your puny little brain can come up with, our brains do not have the capacity to comprehend what He truly is, He is light and fire, so bright that angels stand in front of Him with wings outstretched to block His light even from other angels. No sinful man can look upon Him in His full glory and live and neither could JS. He never saw Him. Even Moses, God was always veiled though He spoke to Him face to face---which means, not in dreams or visions, but even he could not see Him unveiled and live. Sin can not live in His presence. So lease do not even try to tell me you know what He is, that is laughable.

Well, I am not changing my beliefs.

mmksparbud · Nov 14, 2020

He is the way said:
Well, I am not changing my beliefs.

LOL!! Didn't think you would!

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

Dale said:
Peter: "Well some years later, what do you know, a scientist/archeologist finds gold plates in Central America and to his utter surprise there was writing on them. And many more have been found since that first discovery. Huh, was JS was right in 1830? Was science wrong in 1830?"

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of it. The encyclopedia says that the Aztecs wrote on paper. Yes, we know they made some inscriptions in stone. I have never heard of any significant amount of writing by Aztecs/Mayans/Toltecs etc being done on gold. Incidentally, I have a book, Archaeological Mexico, published by the Mexican government, that would mention something like that.

There are many sources that talk about writings on gold plates, both LDS and non-LDS. It is not just a church thing anymore.

Here is one site on Youtube that describes a discovery of gold plates that look similar to those that JS had. I believe this would be considered non-LDS.

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

BigDaddy4 said:
Taking side bets that he cannot come up with a legitimate, non-Mormon source...

What about a legitimate LDS source. You know we have very good Ph.D's with the highest degrees in archaeology as can be found in the world. Their degrees are from all the highly acclaimed universities with honor. I'm not sure what your point is.

Are all our university trained Ph.D's going to lie to you so we can prove that there are gold plates like what JS had? They don't have to because there are many non-LDS university trained Ph.D's that say the same thing. So again, what is your point.

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

mmksparbud said:
This was encased under my post therefore I c ould not just hit the reply button and have it as a quote--so I copied and paste.

"Yes, we believe the fall had to happen. Again you did not answer why God allowed satan into His perfect garden? Did God know that the fall had to happen?

Our ceremony is pretty much right out of the bible as to the Adam and Eve story. It is not exactly the same but pretty close."

I thought I answered. But I guess I was vague. God knew when He created all His angels that the freedom to choose meant that there would at some point be rebellion. That is why He made provision for that long before it happened. Love is not love if there is no freedom to walk away from it. God did not make robots. Yes, when Lucifer rebelled he and his angels had access to every unfallen world---we are the only fallen one. They were therefore not wanted in those worlds where Satan failed to lead them away from God, this was the only one left. That is evident with Job and Satan going into a heavenly conclave among the sons of God which were the leaders of the other unfallen worlds, Satan went as the leader of this world.
God did not put Him here, He did allow him to be here and yes, He did allow the temptation. Adam and Eve did not have to fail, but they did. God could not, in all fairness, allow Satan on the other worlds and not allow him on this one. God allowed the temptation and He had already made provision for that outcome---No---it did not have to happen and no matter how much you argue against it---the fall was not needed in order for man to have children. We owe no debt of gratitude to Satan for the fall nor for children.
You will insist that children are from God, yet, when you insist that Adam and Eve could not have children until the fall, you make Satan the giver of children. I don't think I need to post the quotes of your prophets saying that without the fall we would not be here because Adam and Eve could not conceive until after the fall. That is baloney. They did not conceive until after the fall is true---in no way does that mean they could not---they were told by God to be fruitful and multiply and that should put an end to it as they would have had to obey that command. We do not know how long after creation they were tempted and it could not have been very long at all for indeed, they had not gotten around to it yet and had no children yet so it was within a year at most. Satan wasted no time in getting to them. Your ceremony is a glorification of Satan and if I put it up, along with the words spoken, anyone can see that it is just plain blasphemous. You can not se it for you are blinded by your total submission to the word of JS and your thinking that what he says is more accurate than the bible and has to be true. You can not yet see the lies, I hope one day you will.

Our ceremony is a glorification of satan is so wrong, on so many levels it is laughable. In our ceremony, satan is meant to look evil, because he is evil, and in the end God humiliates him and tosses him out. Where is the glorification of satan when he is berated up and down by God, humiliated, and thrown out in disgrace? Again, tell me how this glorifies him, when in fact it achieves just the opposite.

Laughable is the word I would use, if you watched some film that someone lied and stole to get, and then came away with the idea that that ceremony glorified satan, you are so mixed up, I cannot help you further. We will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

Dale said:
Peter: "I am surprised you did not ask for a scripture about Peter and the 12 as to why they are sitting on 12 thrones judging the House of Israel. (Luke 22:30)"

And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred
one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and
sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:29-20 NIV

You are misquoting Luke in your post. Jesus doesn't say how many thrones His Apostles will sit on. He does say that there are twelve Tribes of Israel, but that's non-controversial. I became aware of this point when I heard a woman tell a Methodist minister that Judas is in heaven on a throne, citing this passage. The minister quickly pointed out that Luke doesn't, and Jesus didn't, say "twelve thrones." We are told only that the Apostles will be on thrones.

Of course, Judas was actually replaced by Matthias as an Apostle in the first chapter of Acts.

Peter: "What roll is Jesus describing here in the judgment process for these men?"

We don't know. It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the Final Judgment. That is reserved for Christ alone.

To me, how many thrones there are is not important, I used 12 because there are 12 original apostles. Of course there could be 11 because of Judas, but there could be as many as 17 because of the many apostless called after the original 12. It does not matter how many thrones anyway.

You have come to a conclusion that this has nothing to do with the Final Judgment, yet in the scripture it talks about judgement by the apostles judging the House of Israel. Do you have any idea what the apostles sitting on thrones are judging the House of Israel for?

Could this judgement be a preliminary judgement? One that expells obvious sinners that are obviously not making it to heaven? Is it a judgement and those that pass this first judgement, get to have a final judgement by Christ himself? You tell me.

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

dzheremi said:
What an uncharitable reading of mmksparbud's post. It is far more reasonable to assume that any "not needing" of any scriptures is written in the context of rejecting the Mormon religion's interpretation of them, in the sense of "I don't need to be told what those scriptures mean by Mormons, since I don't agree with your Mormon interpretation anyway."

Well then she should have written: your interpretation of Luke 22:30 is not needed, and I reject all of it.
But instead it looks like she is rejecting Luke 22:30, when she says: I don't need those scritptures. Like she is mad that I found bible scripture that proves that other people besides Jesus will be involved in the judgement in some way. Which opens the door to JS being involved in some way in the judgement, ****assuming that he is what we say he is****.

But I can agree with you too. She didn't exactly mean what she said. I know she loves the bible and everything in the bible, but it is interesting that she would use those words.

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

mmksparbud said:
\Yes, and it is your faith that insists that the fall had to happen in order for there to be children. You have a ceremony with that very idea in mind---need I post that who ceremony again and all the words that has been written by your prophets about it? Why are you now saying something so contradictory to what your prophets have all said? I will post all the needed quotes if you insist, but then you turn around and get upset when we do.

God had made provision for sin from the foundation of the world, Jesus was to be the savior of His own creation. When Lucifer rebelled God did not wipe him out or his followers. Had He done so, the rest of the angels and other worlds would have served God out of fear. He has let Satan do as he must in order to show the universe what sin leads to---and it was shown at the cross for it was then that Satan was completely caste out of heaven. Before that he had access to the heavenly courts as seen in Job. It is not just a matter of us---it is a matter of the whole universe that is watching this battle between God and Satan play out.
Satan was defeated at the cross, it is a matter of time before Jesus is finished with His work as our High Priest and has determined who is lost and who is saved. The judgement of the wicked takes place later.

The 1000 years is when we, the saved will go through the books of the lost and will see why they are lost.

All questions will be answered then--in other words--it is then that His justice is fully seen by us. He doesn't need the records kept for Himself for He knows all. But we need to see why our sainted aunt did not make it and some creepy old guy did.

It is God that has ben on trial all this time by the rest of the unfallen worlds and unfallen angels

---they saw at the cross the real heart of Satan and of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Satan is the accuser and as such has he talked all those angels into believing God was not the loving God He is. This battle had left those unfallen with a hint of doubt---what if Lucifer was right? Lucifer did not win those other angels by telling the truth of God, he lied through his teeth about Him and some believed him instead. The cross showed the truth.

mmksparbud said:
\Yes, and it is your faith that insists that the fall had to happen in order for there to be children. You have a ceremony with that very idea in mind---need I post that who ceremony again and all the words that has been written by your prophets about it? Why are you now saying something so contradictory to what your prophets have all said? I will post all the needed quotes if you insist, but then you turn around and get upset when we do.

All I have ever maintained is that before the fall Adam and Eve had no children. That is exactly what the bible says. Now we both can speculate as to why they did not have children, we have our thoughts, and you have yours, but all of that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is "they had no children before the fall" straight from the bible.

The 1000 years is when we, the saved will go through the books of the lost and will see why they are lost.

Reference please?

It is God that has ben on trial all this time by the rest of the unfallen worlds and unfallen angels

Reference please?

Satan is the accuser and as such has he talked all those angels into believing God was not the loving God He is. This battle had left those unfallen with a hint of doubt---what if Lucifer was right? Lucifer did not win those other angels by telling the truth of God, he lied through his teeth about Him and some believed him instead. The cross showed the truth.

Reference please?

Peter1000 · Nov 15, 2020

Ironhold said:
Tumbaga - Wikipedia

Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.

Does your work mention anything about it?

Years ago, I looked into Tumbaga, but it has been a long time and so I would say no.

mmksparbud · Nov 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
Our ceremony is a glorification of satan is so wrong, on so many levels it is laughable. In our ceremony, satan is meant to look evil, because he is evil, and in the end God humiliates him and tosses him out. Where is the glorification of satan when he is berated up and down by God, humiliated, and thrown out in disgrace? Again, tell me how this glorifies him, when in fact it achieves just the opposite.

Laughable is the word I would use, if you watched some film that someone lied and stole to get, and then came away with the idea that that ceremony glorified satan, you are so mixed up, I cannot help you further. We will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

LOL! I couldn't make this stuff up!

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have bknown good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

"Adam did not commit sin in eating the fruit for God had decreed that he should eat and fall. . . . That he should die was the saying of the Lord, therefore the Lord appointed us to fall and also redeemed us. . . . (Joseph Smith).

Just why the Lord would say to Adam that he forbade him to partake of the fruit of that tree is not made clear in the Bible account, but in the original as it comes to us in the book of Moses it is made definitely clear. It is that the Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so. So really it was not in the true sense a transgression of a divine commandment. Adam made the wise decision, in fact the only decision that he could make.

It was the divine plan from the very beginning that man should be placed on the earth and be subject to mortal conditions and pass through a probationary state as explained in the Book of Mormon where he and his posterity would be subject to all mortal conditions. – Joseph Fielding Smith, “Was the Fall of Adam Necessary?” Improvement Era, Apr. 1962, p. 231

Adam did only what he had to do. He partook of that fruit for one good reason, and that was to open the door to bring you and me and everyone else into this world, for Adam and Eve could have remained in the Garden of Eden; they could have been there to this day, if Eve hadn’t done something.

One of these days, if I ever get to where I can speak to Mother Eve, I want to thank her for tempting Adam to partake of the fruit. He accepted the temptation, with the result that children came into this world. And when I kneel in prayer, I feel to thank Mother Eve, for if she hadn’t had that influence over Adam, and if Adam had done according to the commandment first given to him, they would still be in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here at all. We wouldn’t have come into this world. . . . – Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Oct 1967, pp. 121-122

You can put all the lipstick on this pig that you want---it boils down to we should be grateful to Satan for the fall for without him tempting Eve, none of us would be here and Adam and Eve would still be all alone in the garden!!! They had to sin in order to obey God!!! How convoluted can you get!!

mmksparbud · Nov 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
God had made provision for sin from the foundation of the world, Jesus was to be the savior of His own creation. When Lucifer rebelled God did not wipe him out or his followers. Had He done so, the rest of the angels and other worlds would have served God out of fear. He has let Satan do as he must in order to show the universe what sin leads to---and it was shown at the cross for it was then that Satan was completely caste out of heaven. Before that he had access to the heavenly courts as seen in Job. It is not just a matter of us---it is a matter of the whole universe that is watching this battle between God and Satan play out.
Satan was defeated at the cross, it is a matter of time before Jesus is finished with His work as our High Priest and has determined who is lost and who is saved. The judgement of the wicked takes place later. All questions will be answered then--in other words--it is then that His justice is fully seen by us. He doesn't need the records kept for Himself for He knows all. But we need to see why our sainted aunt did not make it and some creepy old guy did.---they saw at the cross the real heart of Satan and of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

All I have ever maintained is that before the fall Adam and Eve had no children. That is exactly what the bible says. Now we both can speculate as to why they did not have children, we have our thoughts, and you have yours, but all of that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is "they had no children before the fall" straight from the bible.

Reference please?

Reference please?

Reference please?

READ THE BIBLE!!!

Ran77 · Nov 15, 2020

dzheremi said:
And still after all the years I've spent here so far discussing things with them, I can't understand why the best they can apparently shoot for in a mixed faith environment is to be considered equal with Christianity, a religion which they and their founding prophet believe to be corrupted beyond repair. Aiming pretty low there, aren't you guys?

To consider ourselves brothers and sisters to those who accept Jesus as their Savior isn't aiming low. It's showing love to the members of our earthly family. At least, that's the way we look at it.

I'm not interested in division. I welcome all Christians to join me in a celebration of peace and unity that is shared through the worship of Christ.

Ran77 · Nov 15, 2020

mmksparbud said:
God has named them all---the real God that created them.

Do you have any proof of this claim?

Dale · Nov 15, 2020

Ran77 said:
I read the post, but am not including all of it for sake of brevity.

First off, what John Gill stated did not refute my point.

Secondly, John Gill is not a source of scripture. Therefore, anything he has to say on the topic is his opinion.

Third, if John Gill wants to show up and argue his points with me, then I will be happy to respond to his comments, but I am not going to debate the arguments of someone who is not on this forum.

You don't seem to be aware that John Gill lived from 1697 to 1771. He was English and became a Baptist pastor. He was a child prodigy who knew Greek by the time he was 11. He is regarded as a profound scholar and that is why he is quoted even today.

John Gill: ""God is a spirit, and not a body, or a corporeal substance: the nature and essence of God is like a spirit, simple and uncompounded, not made up of parts; nor is it divisible ..."

Also,

"God, as a spirit, is immaterial, immortal, invisible, and an intelligent, willing, and active being; but differs from other spirits, in that he is not created, but an immense and infinite spirit, and an eternal one, which has neither beginning nor end ..."

Dale · Nov 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
Helium, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen are available all over the universe, and it would not take much for God to take these elements from X and transfer them to our sun. For God, that process would be elementary, assuming God wished the sun to last a little longer.

Peter: "Helium, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen are available all over the universe, and it would not take much for God to take these elements from X and transfer them to our sun. For God, that process would be elementary, assuming God wished the sun to last a little longer."

The problem is that Joseph Smith is trying to tell us that our God is only one of many throughout the universe. Years ago I had a conversation with a Mormon co-worker.

"We know that there's more than one God," he told me.

"How many of them are there?" I asked.

"Don't know," he replied.

In Joseph Smith's conception, stars and planets throughout the universe are inhabited. Smith may have borrowed this conception from Emmanuel Swedenborg. Smith added the notion that there are other Gods out there.

So you say that the Mormon God can't create matter but he can grab matter from elsewhere. Wouldn't He be stealing from the domain of other Gods? Wouldn't they consider this to be theft? Wouldn't they fight back? It is not as simple as you make it sound.

This brings up a basic problem with multiple Gods. What happens if they come in conflict with each other? Pagan gods fought each other. The Christian God is supposed to be above that scenario.

Dale · Nov 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
Could Kolob be in the 3rd heaven? You don't know and until I see it, I have to believe by faith.

If God and the angels don't need a star or planet, are they just drifiting in open space somewhere. Be reasonable. It would be far more reasonable that they are situated on a rather large planet, rather than just drifting out there in space, right?

Where will the New Jerusalem be, if not on a planet? Will we all be in the New Jerusalem, just drifting in open space somewhere? Think about it just for a few seconds and you will see your dilemma, and JS's concept may not seem so far fetched.

Peter: "Could Kolob be in the 3rd heaven? You don't know and until I see it, I have to believe by faith."

On the first, second and third heavens, Paul was going by the Jewish conception. The Jewish conception was that the first heaven includes the air that we breathe, together with wind, clouds and storms. The second heaven is the stars and planets. The stars appear fixed and immovable, unlike clouds, which are constantly shifting. The third heaven is the location of the Throne of God and the angels which surround him.

This doesn't fit with the Mormon conception. The Jews thought that God, the Ancient of Days, is above the visible universe, which includes the vault of heaven. The Mormons say that He is not, that He is among the stars, not above and beyond the physical universe.

Paul accepted the essence of the Jewish conception on this and you should give it another look.

LDS Joseph Smith and the Astronomers

Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads