Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Fit to Bust

February 03rd, 2014 by G.

Stake conferenceOn the sweetness of Mormon life.

You are fit to bust. Your nine-year old daughter is the first speaker at stake conference. She looks nervous seated on the stand. You catch her eye and make faces until all her tension dissipates into exasperation.

She starts with the First Vision, which she recites from memory. Then she glances briefly at you and smirks. You have bragged to her from time to time that you gave a talk in your ward about the First Vision when you were three. But you didn’t have it memorized–she is making sure Dad knows she’s put one up on him.

She then tells stories about answered prayers. They include when you lost your keys, and when you lost your glasses, and when you lost your job. You are embarrassed and proud, fit to bust.

Comments (5)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
February 03rd, 2014 09:24:42
5 comments

Bruce Charlton
February 4, 2014

It is perhaps the greatest of all my satisfactions, or rather deep joys, at becoming a Christian (at my primitive level of spiritual development) to know that such *moments* are not lost, nor do they depend upon my memory to hold and recall them – but they are forever.


Adam G.
February 4, 2014

Yes, that’s it!

The gospel makes simple pragmatic sense if you see it as rules for living a life where you can someday have the present experience of all the incidents of your life without it being hellish to you. Either because the incidents are wholesome and spiritual or because the untoward and sad parts have been fit into a narrative of repentance, growth, and change that is itself wholesome and spiritual.

I didn’t realize that anybody besides us here thought this way. You may want to take a look at the posts we have categorized under the “All things before my face” tag: esepcially this post


Bruce Charlton
February 4, 2014

@Adam – That’s good to know. No wonder I feel ‘at home’ here.

I have not worked this out in any kind of philosophical way, or what it would be like – I suppose it could be said I have a powerful *testimony* that this is the case.

I am absolutely sure; but I haven’t yet found a way of explaining ‘how it would work’.

Thinking about eternity (or trying to think about it) usually gives me brain freeze.

The nearest I can get is that I experience moments which seem like a stasis out of time when I am in them – but in fact they pass and I start ‘doing’ things again.

Or, I can, if I think about it, recognize a thread which goes back through my life; and is the real me living the real moments – the rest being a kind of deception or shadow life. The thread is permanent, the rest is not.

This is related to CS Lewis’s Sehnsucht and his argument from desire – which Tolkien shared – and which as much as anything got me ‘over the line’ into being a Christian (this written on the cusp of my conversion)

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/tolkiens-marring-of-men.html


Bookslinger
February 4, 2014

I think the concept of sensing all of time as a “present” is somehow connected to Hawking’s (and others’) theory of multiple dimensions and a multiverse. Our universe is, perhaps, merely a temporal bubble inside of a larger timeless dimension, a multiverse. (And it’s possible that galaxies are merely bubbles within the larger bubble, since each galaxy has a black hole at its center, into which it is theorized that the galaxy collapses. And the recycling of a galaxy is effected by the black hole turning into a white hole and spewing forth the matter which it had previous sucked in.)

At the point of the Big Bang, time started in this bubble we know as our Universe (or “Hubble Volume”). At the Big Crunch (when the universe collapses back on itself), time ends. Before the Big Bang there was “eternity”. And after the Big Crunch there is “eternity”. The Eternal Father existed prior to the Big Bang, and will continue to exist after the Big Crunch. Hence, He is _from_ “eternity”, _to_ “eternity”. He is “always” and “eternal” in reference to our bubble, no beginning and no end.

The apparent confusion/contradiction over the idea that “God was once a man” comes from misunderstanding that our creation, our Universe, our time-bubble, is a mere subset of a larger existence. If Father Elohim (father of Jesus/Jehovah, and our spirit-father too) were once a man who then attained unto godhood, it was in another time-bubble beside our own, He ‘ascended’ or transcended to that eternal plane through His own theosis, and created/organized our (this) time-bubble under him.

So to say that Father Elohim was _always_ God, is still true in a Mormon context, because “always” is still limited in scope to our time-bubble/universe in the multiverse paradigm.

If the Big Bang theory is indeed true, there really was a beginning-of-time from our standpoint, and any reference to time/space before or beyond that requires access through higher dimensions of the multiverse, which scripture does not directly reveal to us. All this multi-dimensional stuff is speculation and theory on the part of us humans. However, the multi-dimensional, and multi-verse theories do have points that dovetail with parts of scripture, especially those parts of divine beings appearing inside of closed rooms.

[…] having once been a man, using the scientific terminology of the “multiverse“, the “Big Bang” and the “Big Crunch” (see comments by Bookslinger). Was this person […]

Leave a Reply