As a CofChrist member rather than LDS, I share belief in some of the Scriptures that form the basis of LDS cosmology, but not others. I am also a physicist by training and can’t help evaluating my theology in light of what I know about modern cosmology. Indeed, I find my personal theology growing increasingly hard to relate to either my denomination (which is moving rapidly toward becoming a sliver of progressive protestantism) or others.

Yet I do find some aspects of the teachings of Joseph Smith that relate to cosmology (as well as some other scientific disciplines) match modern understandings BETTER than that held by 19th Century science. (Obviously, there are some things I think are contaminated by human sins in the church in the 1830-1844 period, or I wouldn’t have been CofChrist in the first place.)

I find it particularly interesting, for example, that in recording the vision ascribed to Moses, Joseph does not confine his terminology to describing other planets, but specifically calls them other “earths” which have existed in the past and will exist in the future. The recognition that copies and variants of earth (and the entire physical, observable universe for that matter) exist alsewhere in spacetime has become widespread among scientists — although most scientists wouldn’t dwell on the resulting theological implications.

These “parallel universes” aren’t just a science fiction staple, but are actually pretty robust predictions of general relativity and one of the two most widely held interpretations of quantum mechanics. Ultimately, their existence seems to require nothing more than the infinity of space and the fact that the number of ways to organize things in any region of space is finite, even if astronomical.

So, what are we to make of that? Those copies and variants are just like us. How do our spirits relate to theirs? They are obviously part of the plan of salvation, too, even if God hasn’t bothered to explain those things to us.

The Scriptures talk about this earth, but we hold or reject doctrines based on ideas about how the spiritual relates to the physical in a cosmic sense (which we’d be wise to do, in my opinion). Mormonism has always done this in saying that the “mainstream” Judeo-Christian tradition has lost parts of the gospel which have been restored in the Latter Days. LDS theology explicitly incorporates relationship assumptions between the physical-spiritual realms in doctrines such as exaltation and celestial marriage. CofChrist wants to focus more and more on the historical Jesus as perceived by modern progressive Christianity, and downplay questions larger than the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I think modern cosmology will challenge Christian theological understanding as radically as evolutionary theory did. For example, I think we are all putting together the relationship between our bodies and spirits incorrectly; I suspect that the relationship between our spirit and an individual body may be analogous to the relationship between our mind and an individual neuron in our brain — a collective property of all the copies and not exclusive to any of them.

I’m not sure I can say more without drawing light cones, and droning on about non-linear mappings of spacetime into a dual description, but I’m really glad to see someone is thinking about Mormon cosmology.

Well, maybe if you post another thread on the “where/what is Kolob” on this site, it could be debated here on another thread, but I get the feeling that its probably not one of your core pet theories like it is mine.

John, its kind of bizarre, but I find that on any given issue I can fall into any one of these categories with the exception of rejectionist. I’m utterly liberal on some issues, utterly traditionalist on others, utterly scriptural literalist in others, and so on. I am totally eclectic I guess, but very believing. I’m somewhere in the spectrum between liahona and iron rod depending on what we are talking about.

George (#76), I don’t think that’s strange at all. I’m sure it’s like politics. Lots of people can be “conservative” on one issue, “moderate” on another, and “liberal” on something else. I think that’s probably a reason to consider the idea for its own merits, instead of worrying which category the messenger falls under.

Concerning (#74), Kevin Barney had a thread about the Sirius theory here: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/11/kolob-as-sirius/
However, I see now that the thread is over a year old.

John, its kind of bizarre, but I find that on any given issue I can fall into any one of these categories with the exception of rejectionist. I’m utterly liberal on some issues, utterly traditionalist on others, utterly scriptural literalist in others, and so on. I am totally eclectic I guess, but very believing. I’m somewhere in the spectrum between liahona and iron rod depending on what we are talking about.

I find that I’m very compelled by many things put out by FARMS and FAIR, but also very compelled by many things from Sunstone, etc. The only thing is, I could never join, support or attend Sunstone, because I cannot support an organization that supports people like Michael Quinn and Signature books and other apostates. On the other hand, try as I might, I end up owning a few books here and there put out by Signature, and simply cannot find some quotes anywhere else other than in Quinn’s books.

On the other hand, FARMS and FAIR put out all kinds of junk apologetics all the time, so nothing is perfect.

Well, if the decay rate of isotopes is affected, then again, it only affects the decay rate of isotopes and would therefore affect how precise we are able to measure things using isotopic chronowhatever-you-call-it dating methods. But the sheer magnitude of half lives things have gone through over four billion years, or at least, what we percieve to be four billion years would still be an incredibly long period of time, unfathomable still, and still would be a ton of time, not in realm of mere thousands of years, but rather in the thousands of millions.

Are you saying that Mr. Barney is having a debate about it on his blog or something, or are you saying that I should email him to have a debate on his blog or something? Don’t quite understand.

(53) “I think your take on time and the creation is very much in keeping with a major strain of Mormon thought and I’m not arguing that this tradition needs to be abandoned. However, the pushback you’ve experienced shows that today it often takes more than a spoonful of sugar to make that traditional medicine go down.”

I think I got roped into an argument that I wasn’t trying to make by discussing the non-uniformity of time. What I was trying to do was to add a little bit of esoteric thought to your insightful veil vision, nothing more.

By the way, your explanation for your theory made more sense this time. Still dont agree, but at least it made sense this time.

How does that work when Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar says that the governing planets, including Kolob are encircled about by a cloud so they keep all the celestial portion of light from frying the planets? Sirius isn’t Kolob. It doesn’t fit the “celestographic” (my own coinage, removing geo from geographic, and putting celest in its place) details. That’s like trying to put Zarahemla in Utah when there is no Narrow Neck of land north of it. The sirius theory isn’t compelling at all, not even from the point of view of a geocentric cosmology where all the governing planets are visible from the earth by the naked eye as they guys in “Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant” are trying to sell people on. Because there is a gaping hole in their theory. And that is, that even with a geocentric cosmology, the north star was the seat of God in all ancient cultures, where all the rest of the heavens revolve around. If Kolob is truly “nearest” to God’s throne geocentrically, then it should be near the North Star which it is not. BIG GAPING HOLE!

“I don’t think most people have been looking for Heaven in or near Earth’s atmosphere. Nor do I think people are speculating about the nearby stars or even the center of our Galaxy”

Actually I am a Kolob/Galactic Center theorist myself, and it is the only thing that fits the celestographic details. I don’t buy the arguments in the Kolob Theorum book because I have my own ideas on the subject.

Now I get your context and what you’re doing with this post. I may have been lost, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t think it was an interesting post. I’ve enjoyed seeing the differing reactions.

NM Tony (#33 and #54): I’m glad you see method in my madness.

That whole analogy sent my head spinning. I didn’t follow it at all. Try again.

George (#22): I haven’t forgotten you, George. To use the old Nephite expression, let me gird up my loins and try one more time.

As a precursor, ancient and Medieval people pictured heaven was in the clouds above their head and hell was under the ground beneath their feet. The Gods lived nearby, atop the mountains, under the sea, and inside volcanos. If you built a tower all enough (e.g., Babel) you could reach heaven and if you climbed a mountain (e.g., Sinai) you could talk to God.

I think there’s every reason to believe that Joseph Smith’s view of the heavens was still spatial, but more distant. A compelling argument can be made that “Kolob” is based on the semitic root qlb “dog” and refers to the brightest star in Earth’s sky, the “dog star” Sirius (alpha Canis Majoris).

Since Yuri Gagarin, I don’t think most people have been looking for Heaven in or near Earth’s atmosphere. Nor do I think people are speculating about the nearby stars or even the center of our Galaxy — at least since Captain Kirk failed to find God there.

Instead, I think people are envisioning heaven in some kind of alternate dimension, outside of normal space. Thus, even though this model I’ve outined may smell a little like science fiction, I don’t know that it’s functionally that different from what people are imagining.

Let me try to paint a movie scene. There are two perspective and so as not to get caught up with the way other people have defined Telestial/Terrestrial/Celestial, I will call the perspectives Mortal and Immortal.

Mortal Perspective: The year is 131,837 BC. A tribe of humans on the hot plains of Africa take shade from the noonday sun beneath a copse of trees. Two of them, whom later prophets will remember as “Adam” and “Eve” have become partners. In a year they will have a son. It is the moment of the Fall. A universal cataclysm. And yet the Mortal world takes no notice. Nothing appears different as the sun begins its descent this afternoon, the first since the Fall, than it appeared yesterday, the last before the Fall. Just as the historians of the Mortal World will take no notice millennia hence, when the Atonement causes another universal spiritual change, the Mortal World is no different today. The difference is spiritual.

Immortal Perspective: There is no year; time has no place in the immortal frame. We are at the expression of the Fall. This is not a time, it is an event. A universal cataclysm, but one that is necessary for the Plan. It is a component of eternity. For most the Immortal Frame, there is no “change” of perspective, since this component is a part of eternity. However, for two immortals, Adam and Eve, the pespective does change. A veil is thrown across their eyes, and they go from seeing with an Immortal Perspective to seeing with a Mortal Perspective (see the description of the afternoon of April 6, 131,837 BC above). Where “before” they were a part of the Heavenly Garden, now spiritually they are a part of the Mortal world.

Thats whats so awesome about the Gift of the Holy Ghost, because its truly your own Liahona. You should never ever take what anybody says as truth without testing it. Like I said, Joseph Smith believed in Moonmen and that is manifestly false. Joseph Smith also prophesied of the Republican party decades before it was formed by name. Joseph Smith predicted that the problems leading up to the civil war would start in South Carolina. Joseph Smith did lots of things that were weird too. So use the spirit and you can’t go wrong.

RE: “I’m dubious that Eden was on this world at all since Eden was a terrestiral realm not a Telestial one. (I recognize a very popular theory is that the whole earth fell – but that simply isn’t reconcilable with the facts)”

Like I said, go with historical record, or come up with your own belief. Use the spirit.

I have a lot of sympathy for the liberal interpretation of scripture. I’ve never gotten more out of the scriptures as when I read the edition The Bible with Sources Revealed. Fantastic book, especially when accompanied by its companion, Who Wrote the Bible.

Given the traditional Mormon emphasis on Ephraim and Ephraimite lineage, I think there’s some real potential for Category-5/Neotraditional insights, when the Bible is separated into its Ephramite and Judahite component texts, and when the actual history of the northern Kingdom of Israel — with its Ephraimite Kings — is separated from the myth of the unified Kingdom of David and Solomon. I also loved the Book of J.

I think you’re in a minority among practicing LDS Mormons, but not as small a minority as conservative LDS Mormons may think. In the Community of Christ, by contrast, liberals are in the majority. I was able to consult last year with some Community of Christ leaders writing a history of the early church, including talking about the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture in the liberal sense above and I’ll be on a panel at the CoC Seminary next month too. I think it’s a very exciting direction to explore.

JS did say that the garden of eden was in Missouri, but do we know if it was a true revelation, or just speculation? It seems that many take everything that JS taught or thought as the gospel truth. I think that this is unfair to him because his knowledge was not complete, and he was not perfect. He was wrong sometimes, and inspired others. Personally I find it very hard to know what is doctrine when I read the quotes and teachings of the early leaders. I try to give them the room to speculate and be wrong about some of the apocryphal stuff.

I do like, and agree with the catagories on your list John. I personally have a hard time talking to people that are <= 3, not because I do not like them, but they do not know/accept enough of the science to have a rational conversation with. Too bad I am married to a 2.

Nowhere in scripture is it stated that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri. However, there are plenty of early quotations from leaders saying Joseph Smith placed it there. And furthermore, a careful reading of the Book of Moses leads to the conclusion that it could not have been far from Adam ondi Ahman. Discounting any of these statements, you could say that Adam and Eve could have even been transported on the star ship Enterprise and beamed down by scotty to adam ondi ahman. So you can theoretically put the garden of eden anywhere you want I guess. But again, thats Mr. Rogers land of make believe and you might as well go with the historical evidence.

“Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley.” (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 127)

Wilford Woodruff: “Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed. Joseph also said that when the City of Enoch fled & was translated it was whare the gulf of Mexico now is. It left that gulf a body of water.” (Waiting for World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, p. 305)

“I will say more, the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth.” (Heber C. Kimball, June 27, 1863, Journal of Discourses 10: 235).

(1) Scriptural Literalist. The scriptures say that it happened in such-and-such a way. That’s how it happened. Any competing so-called scientific “evidence” that seems to contradict the scriptures should be discarded because the scriptures are a more reliable authority. Rob Osborn (#55) seems to be making the case for this view.

(2) Traditionalist. Joseph Smith and the apostles taught that certain things happened certain ways; we’ve passed that knowledge down and it’s as true today as it was in 1844.

(3) Neoconservative. Science as we understand it is in total harmony with both the scriptures as well as with all the important statements of early leaders. And I can prove it using an incredible intellectual apparatus that will dazzle the eyes, cf. FAIR.

(4) Average. I know the gospel is true, as are the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, and (in a general sense) science. Although I haven’t thought through the implications and whether or not I’m simultaneously holding contradictory opinions, I’m not really worried about it.

(5) Neotraditionalist. Traditions should be honored, but the spirit of the movement included a gospel that was up-to-date in 1844. To honor that spirit, the gospel must be up-to-date now. (I don’t have a good name for the vision I’m articulating on this thread because it’s probably the most rarely held category on this spectrum.)

(6) Liberal. It’s clear that the scriptures contain inspired myths that did not happen, but are still the word of God and can still inform our lives. For the actual functioning of the universe and history, we find more useful information through the sciences and scholarship.

(7) Rejectionist. The contradictions between the scriptural and traditional positions and reality, the inconsistancies of the neoconservative and average positions, and the silliness of neotraditionalist and liberal positions, have left us with nothing worth salvaging. I’m going to move on, but in the meantime I feel the need to explain to you why I’m leaving.

I’m not saying that any one of these ways is the best, although I must admit that I’m somewhat biased against the argumentative style that often accompanies category (3).

I agree with this, but I go the other way. Rather than being anti-science in favor of the Biblical account, I choose to view the current scientific understanding as the best way to understand natural history and reality. The Earth is not 6000 years old and to suggest that it is requires an huge degree of ignorance of the evidence.

The Genesis story is a myth, possibly loosely based on real events. There is no evidence that people lived to be 900 +years old, or in a global flood 4400 years ago. The sciences of Anthropology, Palentology, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, and Atomic Theory all contradict a literal Genesis. As for the Book of Abraham, it has a horrible astronomy in it. That the sun and moon get their light from Kolob, for instance, is as absurd as you can get.

On a personal note, I would hope that you would not stand by Moses and his beliefs, since they were terribly barbaric. They lead to the genicide of unbelievers, and murder of those who would not strictly follow the law with blind obedience. There is very little difference IMO between Moses, if he even existed, and radical islamic leaders.