Dan Brooks's Blog, page 34

The Metaphysics and Science of Mormonism

"Father Lehi is on his death bed. He’s trying to share with his sons the last element of gospel testimony before he passes away. He’s pleading with his sons to acknowledge and recognize the great truths of the gospel. He said you must realize that there is a God and that he created everything either to act or to be acted upon. Now, there are two building blocks in the universe. One building block consists of an active ingredient. It acts. There is another thing that doesn’t act but it can be acted upon. Now, you’ve read that in second Nephi. I had read it. I’ve gone through the Book of Mormon as a teacher over a hundred times teaching it or studying it. Over a hundred times. It’s like President Mathiney said, 'My brethren, people keep adding things to the Book of Mormon for me. I keep finding new things.' Well, that’s one that I finally found. I didn’t find it on my own. Brother Widtsoe said, 'It’s there, now you look for it in the early part of second Nephi.' There it was, something to act and something to be acted upon. Put down D&C 93:30. 'That which acts,' the Lord said, 'is called intelligence or light.' Now, what’s an intelligence? No description, except that it’s like light. Everything that exists which is truth is filled with intelligence. Everything is filled with it. Now the best way for you to know about intelligence is to find out about it the way I found out about it." (The Meaning of the Atonement by Elder Cleon Skousen)

The idea that intelligence is what acts upon the elements of the natural world is unique enough but what's really interesting is the fact that the Lord describes it to Brother Joseph as light.  The reason I find it so interesting is because of "The Double Slit" experiment.

When you have a plate with two slits in them and them you throw say paintballs at it the ones that make it through will form a two band pattern on a screen set up behind the plate.  Which makes sense, but when you use waves through a double slit what happens is part of the waves that touch cancel eachother out and the parts of the waves that do not touch form a many bands on the screen behind the double slit plate.

Now, when electrons are fired at the double slit the interference pattern that develops when waves pass through a double slit emerge, even when one fires one electron at a time.  So in order to figure out how this is even possible scientists decided to observe the electrons as they pass, one at a time through the double slit.  And what do they find?  The electrons pass through one at a time but this time, when observed, they form the two band pattern that emerges when one deals only with particles and not waves.

That's right folks, the simple act of observing completely changed the outcome of the experiment.  As if the electron or light is intelligent.

If you think that is weird, take for instance another quantum conundrum-Entanglement.  When you take two particles that make up an atom, say and electron and a neutron, and you separate the two and act upon one particle the other responds instantly no matter how far away.  Bizarre as this may be it gets better because at the moment of the Big Bang all matter was entangled and thus we are all connected to the universe, and all life in it including each other.

And according to Dr. Dispenza in, Evolve Your Mind, your “brain processes about 400 billion bits of information every second. Usually, however, we are conscious of only about 2,000 of those bits of data.....The infinite information that the brain is processing every single second tells us that there's more to the world than we're perceiving,” says Dispenza.

For the wealth of information that exists, that we have access to, there is an entire Universe of knowledge, information and experience awaiting us within ourselves.

And then there is the concept of the ether or in modern parlance aether, so as to distinguish it from ether and it's 19th and early 20th century connotations."We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (Einstein, Albert: "Ether and the Theory of Relativity") (1920), republished in Sidelights on Relativity (Methuen, London, 1922)

It has been postulated by John A. Widtsoe that this ether or aether is the substance that Joseph Smith was trying to describe when he said that "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter." (Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8) (May 17, 1843)
  
And that this ether that penetrates the universe and binds it and also is the universe, is in essence, the Holy Spirit and it is through the means of the Holy Spirit that God exercises control over the universe.  

Quantum Superpositioning is a theory described by wikipedia as "A fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)."

According to this theory it may be, just may actually be, possible to prove that a man or say God could physically be in all locations at the same time.  John A. Widtsoe refuted the idea about God but that was back before he had the proof that such things were even possible according to this science available to him.  And the same critique will be made of me in another century, of that I have no doubt. 

The film available on youtube called "What the bleep do we know" is a total mind f@*k trust me but if this piques your interest in the metaphysical and theological implications of modern science then give it a go.  It will detail these theories I have presented much more thoroughly than I have space for.  And I see that it in no way violates the tenets of our faith but reinvigorates, broadens and strengthens them.  A lot of it reminds me of Taoism or Buddhism and yet Joseph Smith was chosen to restore truth above all else, so we should find a happy home in this brave new world emerging before us at the dawn of the new millennium. After all, our Gospel is supposed to be the source, the initial inspiration of all truth.  

And last but not least Joseph Smith did say "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)





As a final note I want to let everyone know I am writing a book of the same name as this post, currently I am researching for it but I will be writing soon and alas I will not be posting as frequently as I used to until it is finished.  I will provide information as to where to get it along with its price when the time comes.  Wish me luck!

Update:  The book is available here on kindle and you can download kindle apps for pc and ipad and your tablets as well.  The price is $9.99 usd and will soon be available on amazon.com in paperback.

Blessed are they that Mourn

"Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn." (Romans 12:15)

"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted." (Matthew 5:4)

My wife recently lost a close friend of 23 years.  Nancy was like a sister to my wife and she has been devastated by the loss as much as our children have.  My wife has been doing Temple work and celebrating Nancy's memory by telling fun and goofy stories of her these last few days.  She is doing better than she was but I have never seen Shandra this upset about anything, ever.

I had to be the one to tell her and I found out the hard way my wife is the type to shoot the messenger, which I do understand considering the bad news I came bearing.

I met Shandra after work and she immediately asked "What's wrong?"  She could see I had been crying, so she asked if it was my Grandpa or my Dad due to their poor health it was the logical first question, and I said no, I told her which friends had called and she asked if Nancy......and with tears streaming I said yes.

When it was time to tell our girls we called our oldest in college out of state and made sure they were all listening, then Shandra told them and we all hugged each other and cried.  I had such a splitting head ache from crying it felt like some one had a hammer and chisel they were pounding through each eye socket as well as through the center of my forehead.  But the next morning I couldn't recall the last time I had slept that deeply, I was loopy when I woke up.

These last few days have been among the most difficult we have had together, but we have all mourned together and I was honestly as sad for Shandra as I was for Nancy, and our girls.

But for me there is comfort in knowing what the afterlife is like given I, for a moment, was there myself.  But understandably this is trite and of little consolation to Shandra at the moment though in time it will be of great comfort.

I asked a friend from church to come and help me give Shandra a blessing of comfort the night after she found out.  In the blessing I blessed her that she would have the strength to let go and give the Lord her burdens and that she would atune herself to the Spirit and listen to the Lord speaking to her whether by signs or by dreams to comfort and guide her.

That night when she slept she dreamt of Nancy and Nancy's Father and a friend who passed in high school named Nephi.

She was able to say her good bye's to Nancy and Nancy was able to comfort Shandra and so were her other friends who had passed on.  And I was glad to have reminded her in a blessing to listen and be open to these sings and dreams.

Nancy had been at our wedding and said Shandra looked happier than she did during her first wedding and that it had seemed forced, she knew Shandra was uneasy about it and didn't enjoy much of any part of that experience.

And then Nancy said that Shandra was happier with me than she had ever seen her and that she could tell Shandra was glad to be marrying me and that she was so happy she was absolutely glowing on our wedding day.  And it meant a lot to me because of how well Nancy knew Shandra, and for how long she had known her.

It meant even more to Shandra that Nancy was there to celebrate and rejoice with us on the day when we were joined together.  That Nancy was there to enjoy the day with us and the happiness of her dearest friend and the companionship of our families who had come from far and wide to join us as well.

Nancy was the favorite friend it seemed of all our girls.  When Nancy showed up she got a group hug from all 4 of them.  After they all shouted "Nancy!" they all swarmed her for a hug and cleared a place for her to sit and asked if she wanted anything to eat or drink.  Nancy seemed to always make them feel welcome so they did the same.

I didn't know Nancy well or for long but I am glad to have had some time with her because she was so outspoken and feisty I got a real kick out of time with her.  And from what I've heard Shandra was the quiet one between the two of them but I am thankful for Nancy's influence on Shandra because I think it made her more independent and a much stronger woman to have such a lioness as a pseudo-sister.  Shandra and our girls are all the better for having had Nancy in their lives.

I am thankful for Nancy.  But I am also thankful for Shandra and the girls.  We have had fights, we have made up.  We have gone on road trips and vacations.  We have celebrated, we have rejoiced greatly and mourned deeply.  We have become a family.  For as messy as that always implies.

And I am glad that Nancy was a part of it and will now be able to watch over and guide us.  She may have passed on but she is still very much with us.

Science: A new World Religion

In 1953 Stanley Miller performed an experiment which has had a lasting impact on us all. He demonstrated that passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the main ingredients of living cells. Science was given an inch and they took a mile by teaching that lightning strikes provided the sparks that formed the amino acids which were then concentrated in an “organic soup,” and then linked together to form proteins. The further claim was made that these proteins mixed and formed DNA; however this is false on many levels for many reasons.
  Amino acids will not link together to form proteins, period. It was a bit like claiming that if bricks formed in nature they would get together to build houses. Proteins are so sophisticated that in all of nature, they only form in already living cells.  This scientific fact is not what was taught; because it didn’t line up with the agenda of the Atheist community.
  Which viewpoint is best supported by the evidence? A universe brought to life by a Creator or order born from chaos? Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”
  Is abiogenesis possible? No. Proteins never form in nature outside of living cells and the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids do not connect with the other proteins around them because they don’t “fit” together properly. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. These are scientific facts that are indisputable and so far science has, in truth, not been able to, using the scientific method, proved that life is able to form spontaneously.  
  For example cells can only make proteins for the following reasons:
  •Think of DNA as the cell’s library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of that library. A type of RNA checks out the needed information out of the DNA library to line up left handed amino acids in the exact order required for each individual protein.
  •The correctly ordered left-handed amino acids are then linked together by a “molecular machine” of sorts. This “machine” is made up of another kind of RNA working together with several specialized proteins. The machine links the properly ordered left-handed amino acids, one to the other, to make proteins.
  The molecular machines that make proteins are a good example of a cell’s many complex machines. But no machine ever existed that did not have an intelligent inventor; therefore each of the cell’s machines is another evidence for a Creator.  In the field of Quantum Physics everything is so random that to say you understand Quantum Physics is to prove you don’t.  My point is that on the most basic level of matter everything appears to be so random that it is a complete mystery as to how order is ever achieved.  Atheists insist order springs from chaos, however, no experiment has ever proven that true.  Odd those scientists aren’t using the scientific method to prove the corner stone of their Atheism true, isn’t it?   
One should never make the mistake of thinking that the scientific community is truly scientific, they have as much of an agenda to prove as any other community.
  And after having professed through leap after leap of logic for 59 years that amino acids first concentrated, then linked together to form proteins, “scientific” atheists are abandoning this claim. Why?
  •Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean; they disperse and break down.
  •Amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins; not even when scientists try to slant the results by providing all left-handed amino acids in their experiments to make the perfect “organic soup.”
  •The fact is even if proteins could form, they could not mix with DNA because DNA does not form outside of living cells. DNA cannot and never has been made in a laboratory, neither has RNA.
  The argument is false on every one of the above points. The evidence proves though that there is only one reason that this argument is being abandoned. Because atheists now favor another theory: that RNA rather than proteins formed life. For example:
  These “scientists” have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”{George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinhehart and Winston, 1996 p. 235}.
  It’s great that science finally acknowledges the falsehood about proteins forming in an “organic soup” to create life spontaneously, however the statement invents a new falsehood which is that RNA forms in the way science once tried to prove proteins do but RNA does not for that way either. RNA and DNA, are made of nucleotides,similar to the way proteins are made of amino acids. Fry states:
  “… water greatly interferes with the linking of amino acids and nucleotides into chains, a crucial step in the origin of life.”{Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p.245}.
  The fact is when nucleotides are dry RNA never forms except in already living cells:
  “… no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”{Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6}. “Scientific” atheists today are leaving a false argument about proteins to accept an equally false argument about RNA.The fact that RNA, which is vital to the life of every cell, and cannot be made except by already living cells, is a powerful argument against life forming without a Creator.
Life is different from intelligence to a large degree, a tree is alive but it is not intelligent.  A human being is intelligent and alive so we stand out from all other life on Earth.  Why? If life spontaneously comes into being and intelligence simply evolves why is it that human beings are the only intelligent beings ever even known of on Earth?  If random chance is truly key then wouldn’t we expect to see the insect species that by number and variety dominate life on Earth to have produced conscious and intelligent species among them?  Yes we would if random chance and the inevitability of enough time and high enough numbers result in evolution necessary to produce a race like our own.
What's really of interest to me is where the highly sophisticated information contained in DNA and RNA came from.  Just another spontaneous event?
Science clearly is not even following its own rules on this issue.  
 At this point in time 9 out of 10 Americans believe in “a” God and about 86% of the people on Earth have faith as well.  That and not all scientists are Atheists so the two disciplines are not mutually exclusive. But science is as much a religion today as any other world religion.

I AM THAT I AM

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
  John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
  John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Try reading Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9 sometime for an example of the Bible referring to us children of God as gods ourselves. Everywhere the word judges is used in these scriptures it comes from the Hebrew ELOHIYM, which is the same word used for the God who created the Heavens and the Earth. They did translated it correctly in the King James Version in Exodus 22:28 however: “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of the people.”

The ruler of the people is Moses, and the gods are Moses and the judges. That also would be why David in Psalms called God as one who judges among the gods.  And this may explain the portion of the King Follet sermon where Joseph Smith spoke of a council of god called before the creation of the world.  To me this reminds me of the council described in the Book of Mormon that was called to hear the plans of Lucifer and Jesus and discuss the issues of the plan for all of us.

But then Fundamentalist Christians think Psalms 82:7 refutes the idea that men are gods: “But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. That is because this follows directly after the “ye are gods” statement, they say the “ye are gods” is a statement made in mockingly but to me and others in sounds as if David is saying that these are gods who are acting like men similar to saying grown men are acting like children only much, much more profound.
Exodus 4:16 reads: “And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”

This is discussing the calling of Aaron to be a spokesman for Moses. It’s important to know that the later translation is bad when referring to Moses; the Hebrew reads: Thou shall be a god to him (Aaron).”

In the Torah we are told that the gods that God judges among are the ones who received the scriptures and Jesus did say that as well in John 10:34-36. Actually, there are many occasions in the writings of Moses where those who judged among the people were called gods. In the Bibles today, these are almost always translated wrong, but if you use any Hebrew concordance from a regular Christian bookstore you can prove to yourself that the judges were really called gods time and time again. 
Peter spoke to his students saying that the mysteries to the Kingdom must be revealed in a certain order to lay down the foundation before building upon that foundation.  And he also said that if you speak certain truths before the foundations of understanding have been laid it will be out of order and sound of out reason not to mention that it will offend sensibilities as the King Follet sermon did and still does.
For example I’ll quote this: “Latter-day Saint missionaries laboring among native peoples have long noted the existence among them of both genuine secrets, that is, things too sacred to be mentioned to anybody outside of a particular time, place, and religious occasion, and on the other hand of an extensive daily dissembling to keep unqualified outsiders from meddling with things they would not understand or appreciate. Both types of reticence are conspicuous in the early Jewish and Christian literature. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the people of the community are instructed not to discuss their doctrines and doings with "the people of the pit," i.e., the outside world; (Manual of Discipline (1QS), 9:21-22.) but aside from that they are put under specific oaths of secrecy regarding certain specific things.(1QS, 4:5-6, 8:11-12.)

When Jesus instructed Peter, James, and John to tell no man of what they had seen on the Mount of the Transfiguration, he was withholding sacred things from the uninitiated; (Matthew 17:9; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:36; cf. Matthew 7:6.) when on the other hand he parried tricky questions of the Pharisees by asking them counter questions and then telling them that if they could not answer him he would not answer them (Mark 11:33), he was simply evading them. In the Clementine Recognitions, when Peter refuses to tell Clement about salvation for the dead until Clement himself has received certain ordinances, he is withholding secret teachings, (Clementine Recognitiones (Clementine Recognitions) I, 52, in PG 1:1236.)
 but when he refuses to discuss the nature of the Godhead with Simon Magus, he explains that he is deliberately evading the man because Simon has no real desire to learn about the Godhead and only wants to cause trouble. (Ibid., II, 3-4, in PG 1:1249-50.)"

Professor Goodenough of Yale for example, after many years of searching through the archaeological remains of Judaism to include the earliest remnants, has been able to show that there has existed throughout the 60 centuries of Judaism not one but two separate and distinct types of Judaism, one follows what he calls "the horizontal path," the other  follows "the vertical path." (Ibid., 1:21.)(Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon, 1953-68), 1:18-19.)

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=74&chapid=912#_edn19

And then there are these quotes to also demonstrate that people need to receive the mysteries of the Kingdom or the Gospel principles in a certain order to understand them and that initially these teachings must be revered as sacred and not discussed publically so as to better protect them from misunderstandings and misconceptions as well as venomous attacks and mockery. 

"It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:11).

"They have ears to hear, and hear not" (Ezekiel 12:2; cf. Matthew 13:15-16).

"As they did not liketo retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28; italics added).

"All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given" (Matthew 19:11).

"He taught them many things by parables, . . . as they were able to hear it" (Mark 4:2, 33).

"And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them" (Luke 18:34).

"If I tell you, ye will not believe" (Luke 22:67).

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12).

"This is an hard saying; who can hear it? . . . Doth this offend you?" (John 6:60-61).

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word" (John 8:43).

"My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27).

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12).

"We cannot tell what he saith" (John 16:18).

"The time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).

"The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" (John 1:5).

"As yet they knew not the scripture" (John 20:9).

He appeared "not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen" (Acts 10:41).

"They . . . were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia" (Acts 16:6).

"Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand" (Matthew 13:14).

"I . . . could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, . . . I have fed you with milk, and not with meat" (1 Corinthians 3:1-2).

"Unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Corinthians 12:4).

"By revelation he made known unto me the mystery; . . . which in other ages was not made known" (Ephesians 3:3-5).

"The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Colossians 1:26).

"Many things . . . hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing" (Hebrews 5:11).

"Many things . . . I would not write with paper and ink; but I . . . come unto you and speak face to face" (2 John 1:12).

Then there are the teachings of the apostles that say that the time will come you will see God as he is, because you will be like him (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 13:12), and some speak to the doctrine of eternal progression: As God is, man may become; the fullest exposition of the doctrine is found in 3rd Nephi chapter 19, which is closely matched by the 14th and 15th chapters of John.

Exodus 3:14 God say his name is I AM THAT I AM but this is a mistranslation, the Hebrew reads I AM BECOMING THAT I AM BECOMING.  The original Hebrew captures the true depth of that statement and the doctrine of eternal progression that flows from our church.  But Joseph Smith was unaware of this mistranslation yet the King Follet sermon describes God is a similar if not more precise sense.  And our critics who say our doctrine of eternal progression has no Biblical footing are making  a false statement however given that God’s very name implies that he is evolving and that he referred to us as gods as well.  There is much depth to the original scriptures just as there is much depth to the forgotten works of Orson Pratt and Parley Pratt, the keys to the universe and the key to the science of theology respectively.
So much depth and substance over looked daily but much of it is due to mistranslation and other aspects are due to a lack of diligence in scripture study.  You need not be a scholar to be wise and well informed on scriptural matters.
We were with God in the beginning; we are as eternal as he is.  We can have no end precisely because we had no beginning.  Our bodies channel energy we do not create it, but we can store, use and channel it.  We can also choose what types of energy to channel, use and store.  And once you discover how to control these abilities you can channel from the source of all energy through the Holy Spirit directly.  Healings, speaking in tongues or in all languages in other words, are both possible by using the Holy Spirit; that is our method of communication with God and with Jesus as well.
We can do these things but by and by we will grow and evolve ourselves, maybe not on this side of eternity but we undoubtedly will and there is no limit to how far we can go, even God is “becoming” toward something after all.