What happens when you get some of the world’s smartest people together to ponder whether or not the universe has a purpose? Some of them sound pretty lost, whereas others appear to be on the right track. It is fascinating to consider that these really smart people could read the scriptures, which would answer many of their questions, yet without the benefit of the Holy Ghost they still wouldn’t have a clue. Another great idea: read “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
The Millennial Star
Geoff B: I hope this doesn’t come of as cheap, but since in our religion, God didn’t create the universe, and the universe has always existed and will always exist, then what is the “purpose” of the universe? The Universe does not equal Mortal life, after all…
Matt W, that was exactly the type of comment I was hoping to get. My first point is that it appears the Templeton’s question is really a politically correct way of asking “what is God’s purpose.” PC people these days always say “the Universe” to avoid mentioning God. And it makes sense that the question is asked this way because if you mention God atheists will immediately fall all over themselves to point out why there is no God rather than dealing with the question.
But even if we don’t believe that the PC police are on patrol, it seems pretty clear that the universe must have a purpose, which is to create and promote Goodness and eternal increase. Heavenly Father (and perhaps an infinite number of prior Heavenly Fathers in infinite multiverses) figured that out and have given us a plan that potentially maximizes our happiness by aligning ourself with that Goodness. We can only advance and get closer to Heavenly Father by following the laws of the universe, which He has explained to us involve selflessness, love and sacrifice.
As to how the universe was set up this way, I don’t think our puny mortal minds can comprehend it so it is not explained to us.
The fascinating thing about Joseph Smith’s teaching is that there are so many talks and speeches he gave in which he basically said, “look, folks, it’s really simple. To understand anything you have to understand the nature of God. The problem with the world today is that people don’t understand who God is.” And later in the Nauvoo years he would point out that Heavenly Father was once as we are and that we have the potential to become like him. Once you begin to understand that, all things begin to make sense, just as Joseph said they would.
I wouldn’t recommend TPJS, though. Historically speaking it does tremendous violence to Joseph’s teachings.
J. Stapley’s that’s an interesting comment. Please enlighten the unenlightened with some examples. I’ve read and re-read Joseph’s talks in this book and found it fascinating. But I’m willing to be convinced.
Geoff, the simple thing is to compare TPJS to any of the source materials available (I recommend Words of Joseph Smith). It also has a number of entries that were mis-attributed to Joseph (see http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/).
J. Stapley, very interesting. Thanks.
“and perhaps an infinite number of prior Heavenly Fathers in infinite multiverses”
That’s my theory. Our universe that we perceive is not of infinite size nor of infinite past duration. If it were, the night sky would be solid bright with stars.
I believe this universe might be like a bubble within a larger multi-verse, which is somewhat along the lines of Stephen Hawking’s theory. “Outer Darkness” may then be the void spaces between our universe and neighboring universes.
If so, then this universe may have started, or rather been recycled from a previously collapsed universe, with a “big bang”. And the scripture about the heavens being “wrapped like a scroll” may be the future collapse of this universe or this galaxy. The cycle of big-bang/collapse of universe(s) may correspond to the “one eternal round” of (groupings of) matter that cannot be created or destroyed.
All this is just speculuation, of course. We don’t really know, yet.
Personally, I believe the Genesis account of creation is in relation to this earth only, and even more specifically, this “creation-cycle” of this planet.
I think it possible that the fossile record was laid down in the geological time frame of millions of years, and also possible that Adam and Even lived circa 4000 BC. I reconcile that by thinking that when the Lord said (in Abraham 3:24) “… We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;” that the “these materials” were not raw atoms and molecules, but rather a left-over planet that was to be recyled into a habitation for this “batch” of Heavenly Father’s children.
All scriptural statements of time sequence and absolutes can be put in reference to the beginning of this cycle of the earth’s creation (ie “In the beginning” in Genesis 1:1 refers to the point when the Lord uttered Abraham 3:24) and doesn’t necessarily refer to the absolute beginning (or even current cycle) of the universe.
Some say that since there was “no death before the fall”, that dinosaurs couldn’t have lived and died before Adam. Well, yes they could, because they lived and died in a previous incarnation (creation cycle) of this planet, and not in our incarnation (creation cycle) of this planet.
And all these creation cycles of this planet Earth can still reside within our single creation cycle of this universe. IE: a universe can have multiple cycles of big-bang-then-collapse, and within each cycle of a universe, galaxies, star systems, and planets can also have their own cycles of re-use.
According to the book of Revelation (and maybe Section 76), even the celestial kingdom (which is what this planet will turn into at the end of the millenium) will have an end when things are “wrapped”.
Geoff,
I couldn’t disagree more with your #2.
Where you see “The Universe” as a substitute for “God”, I see “God” as short-cut of an answer to the “Universe” question, an answer which only places what we are really after one step further away. It would be one thing if separating “God” from “Universe” amounted to breaking a really hard question into two easier questions, but it is not at all clear that this is the case. Indeed, it seems that breaking up the question into two only makes two really hard question to answer.
Bookslinger, thanks for your deep thoughts in #7. I think there are many scriptures to support your view, although again a lot of it is pure speculation.
Sometimes I wonder if such speculation is “pondering the solemnities of eternity” or whether it is “looking beyond the mark.”