mikbone

Legion (Mark 5:2-13) is a good example of what I mean by an evil spirit... You stated it was not a natural progression for Heavenly Father's spirit children to receive material bodies... You are wrong. It is the natural progression. Only a third of the pre-mortal existence spirits were denied bodies and only because they openly rebelled against Father. Everyone else will be reunited with their body during their respective resurrection, even the Sons of Perdition. And the third that followed Lucifer have great enmity toward us mortals. They want us to fail because they desire us to be as unhappy as they are. Perhaps they are unhappy because they have been damned and denied a body... You are trying to argue that it is not normal for all Father's children to become as Father is. I agree. Many of the souls that are tested in second estate will be damned and fail. But that was not the issue of our discussion. Our discussion was about it being natural for a spirit child of Heavenly Father to have a body... The scriptures that I refered to support this concept. Furthermore, those that do progress according to the plan of salvation will have the opportunity to become like Heavenly Father. I believe that Father wants everyone of us to succede. Depends on how you look at it. Elohim created their spirits so yes, they are technically his offspring. On the other hand those of the third host that followed Lucifer have probably been 'adopted' as his children. I would assume that they consider Lucifer as their father...

What about evil spirits possessing the bodies of animals and even other children of God? I'll say straight up that I don't know how the interactions occur between element and spirit. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that course matter cannot affect fine matter in a controlled or purposeful way. The scriptures disagre with your above statement. D&C 93:33-34, D&C 45:17, D&C 138:17,50 We are the offspring of resurrected eternal beings of Flesh and Bone. Our natural progression is to become as they are. I am completely confused with your assertations... Your proof?

Perhaps. I don't pretend to know what happened on day one. But if I was to make assumptions based on both modern day prophets and science... Part one Earth Formed from other Planets "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live." (Joseph Smith Jr., Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841, as recorded in the Clayton Record) This description very closely resembles what astrophysicist say occurs during a supernova event. Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For brevity, in a supernova model, as a star larger than our sun goes through its life cycle it starts to burn the lighter elements into more and more heavier elements through fusion and a series of core collapses. Eventually a Nickel-Iron core is created which in turn cannot exert enough outward pressure to prevent a the atomic nuclei themselves from collapsing. This in turn causes the entire star to implode and collapse. Which then creates a massive pressure and temperature increase that causes the supernova explosion. The supernova model would explain Joseph Smith's comment that our earth was made from other planets, and also how our planet is composed of many heavy elements. This event of course would explain the creation of light as supernova are extremely luminous events. Part two "Again as a proof that matter is eternal and that this earth was formed out of unorganized matter let a man take a good telescope at 4 AM and look at the sword in the belt of Orion. And he can see unorganized matter enough to make a million worlds each as large as the sun." (Orson Pratt, meeting of the twelve apostles on September 13, 1846 as recorded by Wilford Woodruff) Orson Pratt was spot on according to our current observations. Protoplanetary disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you check out this link, the first image that you see on the top right is a star forming region within the Orion Nebula just as Orson Pratt described over 150 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph Smith had privately explained these concepts to Pratt. If you look very closely at the image, you can see where God is dividing the light from the darkness. These protoplanetary discs are where new young stars as well as planets are organized out of the debris and shockwave of supernovas. All in all, a pretty awesome day.

D&C 138:7-8 Yes spirit is this fine or more pure matter. Perhaps the Dark Energy that Scientist are searching for is actually this spirit matter... In that case we will never find it using the scientific method. We have no idea how spirit matter works. But it is obvious that we interact with it during our lives (those of us religious sort anyhow). Abraham chapter 4 describes the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation was done by Heavenly Father. Elohim is the architect. I think that no one during our pre-mortal existence (excepting of course Jehovah) was allowed to witness this event. Genesis & Moses deal with the physical creation that was performed by Jehovah. Jesus Christ is the carpenter. Jehovah did work directly with the coarse material. Jesus Christ created the heaven and the earth under the Father’s direction (see Moses 1:31–33 ; 2:1 ). Others were privileged to assist Him in the Creation, including Michael, or Adam. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed?” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:74-75), This is all very plainly taught in the temple narrative.

my scriptures are wore torn and battle scarred. While I was on my mission Chile circa 1987 I was asked why I would desecrate my scriptures. I pulled out Exodus 34:1 and explained that Moses actually destroyed the original 10 commandments in a fit of anger to make a point to the Israelites. The Lord was not upset. He just made another copy. We can reproduce the scriptures at will, stone, paper, digital... What is more important the medium upon which the words are written, or if the words are written upon our hearts?

Here are some direct quotes from the article that I found. Journal of Medical Ethics Paper: 'After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?' | NewsBusters.org Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ... An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. ... to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. ... The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. ... Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life. ... The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. I have had 9 newborns. They were all people. The nerve. Reminds me of the Nazi dehumanizing Jews.

Thank you. See it wasn't that hard. You know it is wrong. Black and white is easy. You and I both know that the authors of this article are trying to put forth the idea that black is white. That it is OK to kill infants if they are (sickly, unwanted, etc... who knows). And I wouldn't be suprised if this article sets a precident and becomes quoted in future medical ethic articles and abortion proponent arguements. Your comments about adding a grey area just confuse the issue. Those 4 options that you described happen many many times daily in our country. If you want to have a discusion about medical grey areas and ethics about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a overweight poorly controlled diabetic who wants to have a re-do re-do cardiac bypass surgery lets do it. But this article is about infanticide. It is wrong. Equally sinful as abortion.

The issue is the KILLING. The infanticide. I know pornography when I see it. Do you? Would you feel comfortable administering a lethal injection to a sickly infant. I would not.

I took medical ethics in medical school too. Your original 4 options have nothing to do with the article in question. The article is obviously about killing infants. Not pallative care. Not admistering drugs to hasten death. Those of us who are in the medical profession should stand up and decry this as wrong.

Your coments make a travesty of the actual issue. The authors of the article are justifying killing infants. Not any of your 4 options. Stick to the topic. These are the kind of mental exercises that let the devil slowly drag us down to hell. D&C 10:25-26

Disgusting. And anyone who can justify the decision to print this garbage in an 'Ethics' Journal should re-evaluate their personal ethics. Ethics - also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. The concept is clearly unethical. reminds me of the scripture. Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! It is much like our judicial system calling the Constitution a living document so that they can re-interpret outdated material to mean anything they so desire. My wife graduated from J Ruben Clark Law School at BYU. When she took the legal ethics she figured out how to answer the questions correctly. Simply ask yourself what would Jesus Christ do in the same situation and then pick the opposite answer. The Earth is ripening...

If you are an endowed member, you may want to go back to a temple session and pay attention to the creation narrative. Also very interesting concerning science / LDS religion and the creation. "Earth Will Go Back to God This earth will be rolled back in to the presence of God and crowned with Celestial Glory." (Joseph Smith Jr., Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841, as recorded in the Clayton Record.) Compare to 2 Nephi 23:10 -13 “When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. … But when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system. … This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth.” Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, 17:143. All three of these passages describe the Earth traveling from the presence of God (Presumably near Kolob) after its creation and settling into its current orbit around our sun. And that it will do the same trip in reverse after the millennium. Personally I think that Brigham Young heard Joseph Smith talking about this transit and embellished the story stating that it occurred after the fall when in all likely hood it occurred prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. This concept is pretty amazing. If it is true. It would explain the first few days of creation. Day 1 - The planet Earth is created near Kolob. Its rotation is started producing Day and Night. Day 2 - The Earth's Atmosphere is created. Day 3 - The Earth is moved from Kolob's presence and is placed into our current solar system. After Earth enters into an orbit around our sun, it is impacted by Theia. Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From this event The Sun, Moon, and Stars are created...

I am not familiar with any Joseph Smith revelations or teachings that are contrary to well accepted scientific theories. The prophet was amazingly insightful.

I agree. I wish that some of the latter day prophets had not made 'off the cuff' comments on issues for which they had not received revelation. But, in my opinion, Joseph Smith Jr. (Moses, Abraham, Brother of Jared, etc) were give visions of the universe and basic science. "The only way to obtain truth and wisdom, is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer and obtain divine teaching." Joseph Smith Jr. Sermon delivered at General Conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Ill. on October 3, 1841.

Perhaps, but one will make you a buck, while the other will get you entrance into heaven... If you follow the truth that you find.

I agree. My problem is with 'scientist' who refuse to even consider the position of religion because religion cannot be tested via the scientific method. When in reality the most basic of science (physics) essentially is invoking faith in the concepts of dark energy and dark matter. It is a hypocrytical stance. It is reassuring to see scientist like John Widtsoe, your father, etc...

The character was Satan or Lucifer. The same individual that tested Moses in Moses chapter 1, and Joseph Smith prior to the first vision.

Orthopaedics. Thanks for the link. Some of that was over my head... Especially the math. It's great that we have members of the church in all areas of study. We need more men like Widtsoe. But yeah Joseph Smith was all over it. I was wondering if spooky action at a distance (entanglement) could have applications for instantaneous communications over vast distances...

I picked up a new habit of listening to science podcasts during my daily jogs and wanted to comment / get feedback on a topic that I find interesting. One particular podcast had Janeane Garofalo (an actor with ultra-liberal political views) wherein she basically stated that any people that believe in God are mentally unstable. She was particularity slanderous of Tea Party members... The concept that people make their decisions based upon their faith, was a concept that she could not understand. She kept stating that she required evidence to make any decision. Well, personally I find her absolutely uninformed, uneducated and shortsighted. During another jog-podcast I was learning about energy, matter, dark matter and dark energy. And I learned something quite interesting. HubbleSite - Dark Energy - What Is Dark Energy? According to the current model accepted by physicist our universe is composed of 2 different substances matter and energy. Einstein was the first to recognize that matter and energy are one in the same via the equation E=MC^2. But according to recent study our universe is a bit more complicated than we originally assumed. All of the material that we can physically see and study which scientist define as visible matter (stars, planets, space, light, gravity, atoms, etc...) only add up to 4% of the material that we think compose the Universe as we know it. Dark matter is a currently undetermined substance which is thought to cause galaxies to rotate in their current fashion and can be inferred by gravitational lensing, (it is quite complicated) anyway this dark matter is thought to compose another 22% of the matter / energy of our universe. Dark energy is even less understood, it is hypothesized that Dark energy is the stuff that is causing our universe (space itself) to expand. This dark energy is thought to compose the remaining 74% of the matter / energy of our universe. Thus according to physics (our most basic science) we can currently only study / experiment with 4% of the cosmos. So 96% of the matter / energy of the universe is TOTALLY UNKNOWN. I find it absolutely infuriating that these pseudo intellectuals condemn people of faith for basing our judgments on something that cannot be experimented upon using the scientific method. Joseph Smith (who died 35 years before Einstein was born) made the following statements: Speaking of eternal duration of matter he said. 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 cant see it but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (Joseph Smith Jr. Sermons delivered at Ramus, Ill. May 17, 1843, Source: William Clayton diary) Now I ask all the learned men who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation say, that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing, and the reason is they are unlearned; they account it blasphemy to contradict the idea, they will call you a fool.--- I know more than all the world put together and the Holy Ghost within me comprehends more than all the world, and I will associate with it. The word create came from the word baurau; it does not mean so; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos; chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element, are principles that can never be destroyed. They may be organized and re-organized; but not destroyed. (Joseph Smith Jr., General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Sunday Afternoon April 7, 1844 as recorded in the Times and Seasons Minutes) I am also disheartened when members of the Church stumble upon 'higher learning' and lose their testimonies. As a M.D. I occasionally think of myself as a scientist. And I'll tell you what I know. Although many will try to convince you that we are living in a time of enlightenment and of vast increase in scientific knowledge. We know next to nothing. We continually make mistakes. We have a long way to go. Moses statement still holds true, “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” Moses 1:10

Satan cannot hang out with Jehovah in Heaven, but Jehovah could come down to Earth where Satan was cast.

I've been where you are. I have come to a conclusion that I have found to be satisfactory, as well as agreeable with scripture and latter day teachings. Check out one of my earlier posts... http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/19807-what-type-body-did-jehovah-show-unto-brother-jared.html you may find it interesting.

What you are discussing is not new. Its been around a long time, but it is NOT doctrine. check out New Cool Thang Multiple Mortal Probations — Why I Tend To Agree With Heber C. Kimball and Friends This site does a good job of philosphical debate. You may notice that they are very careful in the way that they discuss the various theories. Lots of words like may, perhaps, suggests... You have recieved good advice from the above posters.

Interesting that you titled your post fulness of the gospel... As you are quite aware keeping the commandments only gets us entrance into the Terrestrial kingdom. Perhaps you hear everyone else speaking in your local meetings about things like tithing, temple worship, fasting, prayer, home teaching, service because they are shooting for the Celestial Kingdom???

I'm going to start referring to myself as a biblical Christian.

The Pearl of Great Price is 2 books, Moses and Abraham. The book of Moses is Genesis 1.0 Genesis in its current versions has been watered down over the years with mis-translations etc. Moses chapter 1 didn't even make it into the current version of Genesis. It is a great read. Satan probally had a hand in making sure that Moses chapter one did not make it into the current version of Genesis. Abraham is a very small book of only 5 chapters and 3 drawings. The first 2 chapters are an account of Abraham's life from his personal perspective. Chapter 3 discusses the Universe (astronomy) and the pre-mortal existence. Chapter 4 & 5 recount the Spiritual creation of the Earth I love the Pearl of Great Price. The name is fitting. The material is short but of great worth.