World a giant urim?

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:47 am

According to Joseph Smith, the glorified earth will be a glorified peep stone. I'm trying to understand what the appeal is of living on the surface of a giant urim. Is it so that you can constantly see God all the time? Or did Joseph Smith just want to do a lot of peeping in eternity, if you know what I mean?

And how is the earth-as-urim idea compatible with the earth-as-sun (i.e. flaming ball of gas) idea?

Post by **_charity** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 am

If you meant the question seriously, ck, I think the answer is that is has to do with communication between spheres. And the idea of the Heavenly abode being something other than dirt is Biblical. Streets of gold, etc.

I never heard any earth-as-sun teaching.

Post by **_moksha** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:07 am

World a giant urim?

Hmmm, this sounds better than the World Wide Web!
Bet some of the younger guys can't wait to download some pics of those Alpha Centari babes

Post by **_Sethbag** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:17 am

There's nothing obviously special about the magic rock Joseph Smith used to find treasure and translate the Book of Mormon, so why does the Earth have to be anything other than what it is right now to function as a grand and glorious Celestial Magic Rock?

I know there's the tidbit about a sea of glass, and Charity brings up the streets of gold. Did anyone mention the gumdrop trees, and the chocolate fountains? We're all going to live in these great and spacious Gingerbread houses on this giant sea of glass with the streets of gold, and we'll just look down at the ground whenever we want to know anything, because it'll all be a giant Celestial magic rock.

Excuse me for sounding so sarcastic, but the whole notion of all of this really happening is retarded.

Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about regarding the age of the Earth, or the Flood of Noah, or 6 foot tall Quakers living on the Moon. Those are all acknowledged to be just his fallible human opinions. But the bit about the Earth turning into a giant Celestial Magic Rock, well, that's doctrine you can hang your hat on.

Post by **_moksha** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:41 am

Flaming Ball of Gas???

Excuse me, that must be the curry I had for dinner.
Recipe you ask? Glad to oblige:

Easy Curry

2 cans Progresso Vegetable Soup
1 can whole kernel corn
1 6oz. can Karee (yellow) Curry paste
some rice noodle sticks
4-5 tablespoons brown sugar

Bring to boil then simmer till done. Watch out for that ball of gas.

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:09 am

charity wrote:If you meant the question seriously, ck, I think the answer is that is has to do with communication between spheres. And the idea of the Heavenly abode being something other than dirt is Biblical. Streets of gold, etc.

I never heard any earth-as-sun teaching.

I meant it mostly-seriously.

I scrounged around to figure out where I got the earth-as-sun teaching. Apparently it's from Brigham:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-st-jdv13p271.html

Right-hand column.

Post by **_charity** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:19 am

CaliforniaKid wrote:
charity wrote:If you meant the question seriously, ck, I think the answer is that is has to do with communication between spheres. And the idea of the Heavenly abode being something other than dirt is Biblical. Streets of gold, etc.

I never heard any earth-as-sun teaching.

I meant it mostly-seriously.

I scrounged around to figure out where I got the earth-as-sun teaching. Apparently it's from Brigham:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-st-jdv13p271.html

Right-hand column.

Did you read, "I rather think it is." Brother Brigham was giving an opinion. He didn't say Goid told him. You are so guilty of presentism. Just wait a couple of hundred years and lets see how silly our pronouncements of the rules of physics, etc. are.

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:03 pm

charity wrote:Did you read, "I rather think it is." Brother Brigham was giving an opinion.

One area in which both critics and apologists can agree is that when a prophet speaks, it is just his opinion. We have common ground here. It's refreshing that apologists are increasingly accepting the critics position that Mormon prophets are just guys with opinions. Now, can you please get the word out to your chapel Mormon friends. ;)

Post by **_Phaedrus Ut** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:14 pm

The Earth, often mistaken for a planet, is really just a computer working on The Ultimate Question.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:32 pm

charity wrote:
CaliforniaKid wrote:
charity wrote:If you meant the question seriously, ck, I think the answer is that is has to do with communication between spheres. And the idea of the Heavenly abode being something other than dirt is Biblical. Streets of gold, etc.

I never heard any earth-as-sun teaching.

I meant it mostly-seriously.

I scrounged around to figure out where I got the earth-as-sun teaching. Apparently it's from Brigham:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-st-jdv13p271.html

Right-hand column.

Did you read, "I rather think it is." Brother Brigham was giving an opinion. He didn't say Goid told him. You are so guilty of presentism. Just wait a couple of hundred years and lets see how silly our pronouncements of the rules of physics, etc. are.

The "I rather think it is" could be said to apply solely to the question he had just asked in the previous sentence, which was "Do you think it [the sun] is inhabited?"

His opinion was that the Sun was inhabited. The following statements were statements of fact, and were not so qualified. "so will the Earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then." This is Brigham's statement of fact. It is his prophetic teaching on the subject. You are trying to take his "I rather think it is" statement, which applied only to one specific question, and apply it to this whole body of teaching, so that you can excuse it away. You can't. And Brigham Young was sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, so you have to take his words seriously. He was the man supposedly empowered by God to speak The Truth for God on Earth. Who are you, Charity, to so flippantly disregard the words of an Apostle of Jesus Christ and Prophet of God on Earth?

This is one of the worst things about LDS apologetics. They are trying to defend the notion that God has spoken to us in these latter days through Prophets, to whom he has entrusted the leading of the Kingdom, and the teaching of the members, and yet the apologists are ever so willing to just throw away their Prophetic teachings at every opportunity, if doing so makes their apologetic argument a little sounder.

You either believe in credible Prophets of God who actually spoke Truth that they had been given through their Prophetic gifts and calling, or they were making it up as they go along. You really can't have it both ways. If half the time they're just speaking their own opinions, and there's no way to determine when they are and when they're actually a conduit for Truth from God, and you can't ever really tell what is what, then they are simply not credible.