Seeker7

JUSTICE: Sorry! I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. The whole "need for faith" thing is an issue of genuine confusion for me, but I guess those questions are better left for a separate thread. Forgive me if I sounded condescending, though. The truth is, a lot of religious doctrines seem strange to me (which is probably the direct result of being brought up irreligious). I honestly had no clue what Mormons believed until I visited this forum and started doing research on the websites people provided for me. Everyone's been really helpful here, including you! So thanks again. :)

SKIPPY740: LOL. What can I say? Homer Simpson is a genius! Nah, just kidding. I understand what you mean. But don't you think it's a little bit iffy to compare finite consequences to infinite ones? I don't have any kids, though if I did, I would encourage them to keep trying for success despite their failures. But that's only because I know that the consequences of people's everyday failures in this life DO NOT LAST. From bad test grades to bankruptcy, there are ways to overcome our earthly failures. But what about when the consequences are infinite? There is no way to overturn an eternal judgment once it's been pronounced. In other words, THERE'S NO WAY OUT. That kind of situation is obviously very different from flunking out of calculus or cheating on your spouse. Once again using my imaginary kids as an example: If I knew there would be eternal, inescapable, unchangeable consequences for ANY of my children's actions, and if I also knew that some of them would fail, I would indeed tell them not to try. If I had kids, I'd love them, and I wouldn't want any of them to suffer. Yeah, forever! YIKES! But I can't! I don't remember any such thing. The Veil of Forgetfulness won't let me!

SOME SHORT RESPONSES TO PEOPLE'S ANSWERS: JUSTICE: Thanks for your response. I see. Why do you think God gave us the Bible and the Book of Mormon, then? And why do you think he communicates with people through prayer at all? By your logic, it seems God should hide himself from us completely. Then, we would have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that he exists, and the need for faith would be even greater! YAY FAITH! BYTEBEAR: Any thoughts on how he got that way, and why his route was unavailable to the rest of us? Thanks! HIJOLLY: I disagree. Christ DID come into mortality to obtain a body. Therefore, it must have been necessary. Sorry; I'm still confused. You just said, "Christ was 'God' BEFORE mortality." Then, you made it clear that the rest of us weren't, and you said that the only way for us to achieve godhood is to become mortal. In your own words, "There IS 'no other way.'" But in the same exact post, you stated that the opposite was true of Jesus. You said he was God before becoming mortal, while at the same time stressing that mortality is necessary for divine progression. I still see a contradiction there. Heh, funny you should mention that... BLUEJAY: Aren't we all sons and daughters of God, though, just like Jesus? Why, then, did God not give us all the capacity to live without sin? It sure would've made things a lot less unpleasant! Yours, for foolishly thinking you could become as good as Michael Jordan, when you are physically incapable of doing so. (Michael Jordan is pretty awesome... ) It would only be Michael Jordan's fault if he was the one forcing you to strive for an unreachable goal. What if I'm severly dyslexic and I literally cannot read the map? Getting lost wouldn't be my fault, because I was physically unable to complete the task that was presented to me. I was bound to fail. I view sin the same way. Humans literally cannot avoid sin. We are physically unable to complete the task of living a sinless life. We are bound to fail. I think whoever gave us that impossible task in the first place is just as responsible for our failure as the person who gave a visual guide to a dyslexic person. TRAVELER: No I don't!

One thing I still don't fully comprehend: 1.) Why didn't God simply choose NOT to instate the Plan of Salvation? I understand that IF we are to become gods, we must abide by the eternal, unchangeable law, which dictates that a mortal existence is necessary for our progression (except perhaps in the case of Jesus, whom some say was a god prior to his mortality). But during our pre-mortal lives, weren't we happy? Weren't we god-like? What's the harm in simply remaining that way? God lost a third of his spirit children forever, simply by telling them about the plan. Still more will suffer in hell for their mistakes on Earth. And even those who don't go to hell will endure much suffering during their mortal lives. It seems to me that all this plan has done is create a huge amount of unneeded suffering, which will be worth it for some, but not all. We could've just remained in heaven with God, content and pain-free for all of eternity. Why was it BETTER to go through with the plan? If someone could help clarify that small point for me, I think my understanding of this subject will finally be sufficient. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. They've been really helpful to me. Here's a summary of the Plan of Salvation as I understand it now: 1.) Before being born into mortality, all human beings existed as spirit children, the literal offspring of God the Father. We humans are not creations of the Father, but rather procreations; and he, God, had no control over what we would be like once we became alive. 2.) There is an eternal, self-existent law stating that whosoever desires to become fully divine must be born into a mortal body and live a life of suffering, surrounded by evil and temptation. This way, humans will come to understand the difference between good and bad, and will learn the importance of doing righteous deeds. Also, enduring hardships enables people to truly appreciate times of joy. Our Heavenly Father did NOT create this law; in fact, he himself must abide by it and cannot change it. 3.) God presented this knowledge, which we now call the Plan of Salvation, to his spirit children in the pre-mortal existence. Part of the plan involved the intervention of a savior to sacrifice himself and atone for the sins of mankind. Jesus volunteered and told God, "Let your will be done." Lucifer also volunteered, but he said, "Instead, let's deny people their right to choose. We should force them to do the right thing so that all may be saved. Also, once this has been done, I would like you to give me the glory for saving everyone." But Lucifer's plan couldn't actually save anyone, because it violated an infinite, unchangeable law that even God the Father knew he must obey. Thus, Jesus was appointed as the savior instead. 4.) A great war was waged in heaven -- Lucifer and his followers pitted against God and the rest of his children. Eventually, Satan and his lot were cast out of heaven. All the human spirits who remained would eventually experience temporal birth as part of the test to achieve godhood. 5.) Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth. They lived in the garden in a state of innocence, not knowing right from wrong or good from evil. They didn't even know how to procreate, which was one of the commandments God had given them. The only way for them to keep God's commandment was to transgress a law and eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge, thus making it possible for all other human beings to be born. They did this deliberately and it was NOT considered a sin. 6.) The aforementioned atonement took place when Jesus died on the cross after living a perfectly sinless life. Jesus had to do this because it was another aspect of the eternal law that could not be broken. People's sins could not be forgiven any other way. Although, the matter of how Jesus was able to live a sinless life in the first place is subject to debate and is not fully understood. 7.) If we try our best to keep God's commandments while putting our faith in Christ's atonement, we too will become gods once we die, and we will present to our own offspring the same exact Plan of Salvation that we ourselves underwent -- once again in keeping with the eternal, unbreakable law. Does that sound right?

MISSHALFWAY: Hi! Thanks for the informative response. I appreciate you sharing your views. That’s an interesting thought! Thanks for explaining it to me. I hope you don’t think I’m saying tyranny is the way to happiness, though, because I’m not! I don’t think controlling people is always a good way to make them happy. I was mainly thinking of “forced choices” in this context: 1.) In the pre-existence, God sees that his children have reached a point beyond which they cannot progress without intervention. He knows of a way to let them grow beyond their current state. 2.) But God, being perfect and omniscient, knows that if he presents this plan to his children, some of them will dislike it and rebel against him. These people will suffer immensely for their wrongdoings. Others will agree to go along with the plan, but will fail the test once it’s applied to them. These, too, will suffer. And even those who do eventually pass the test and progress to godhood will also suffer, but only during their mortal lives, and not as greatly as the rest. In other words, God recognizes that the plan will cause much suffering, and it will be “worth it” for some… but not all. 3.) What is the moral thing to do here? Obviously I’m not God, so I can’t pretend to know better than he would, but I can tell you what I think based on my own morals (which supposedly come from God): The moral thing to do would be to cause the least amount of suffering; in other words, don’t instate the plan! Let your children continue to exist as they are – happy, but not fully happy; god-like, but not fully gods. Where’s the harm in that? You see, I think it would’ve been better to never even apply the test in the first place. I realize that might sound presumptuous of me, but when I think of all the misery this plan has made possible (if it’s true), I can’t help but think, “That doesn’t seem right!” Perhaps Lucifer did have selfish intentions when he offered to save everyone, but the outcome itself would’ve been beneficial to all – it would’ve been moral. I understand that you believe such a thing could never have happened. Perhaps not. But if it were possible, it would’ve been a better alternative. That’s all I can say. Thanks again for all your help!

TRAVELER: Thank you for the helpful post. I notice you haven’t said anything here about becoming mortal. You’ve only said that in order to have a fullness of joy and understanding like God, mankind must know the difference between good and evil. I think I understand your clarification well enough, but it does raise one question in my mind: If knowledge of good and evil is all that’s required for becoming like our Heavenly Father, why didn’t he simply teach us about it? I don’t see how gaining a mortal body would be a prerequisite for acquiring that information. Is it that we must experience good and evil for ourselves in order to truly understand their importance? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me either. I know exactly what cancer, starvation, drowning, zero-gravity, and old age are, but I’ve never experienced any of those things. I don’t think people have to experience all things for themselves in order to understand the basic concepts, and that includes good and evil. I think this ties in to what JUSTICE says: I’m not sure I understand how something like evil can be compared to the taste of a strawberry. Taste is a sense. I would agree that it can’t be fully, adequately described to someone who’s never experienced it – just like the color blue cannot be “explained” to a blind man. In fact, I wouldn’t know how to describe the color blue to anyone! What is blue? That’s the tricky thing about senses; they can’t be effectively described. They simply have to be experienced. Evil is not a sense, although it is something we experience with our senses. Evil can be described; it can be taught. For example, murder is one of the greatest evils. I’ve never experienced it, but I know exactly what it is. I would think that an all-powerful God would be able to teach his children about the concept of evil without actually making them suffer from it. And not only that, but also – being benevolent – I’d think he would want to! If this is about what men desire, then perhaps I should illuminate what I desire. I crave knowledge about the world around me, and the wisdom to make right choices. I want to be happy in life, and I strive to make others happy as well. I long to bring about peace, tolerance, and understanding in my fellow man. But what if, after serious reflection, I decide that your god probably doesn’t exist? What if I then choose not to live by his laws, even though I remain a relatively good person? According to this plan, TRAVELER, what will I get? Thanks again for your insights.

TUBALOTH: Thanks for your response. I’ll try to clarify my point as well as I can. You said: Perhaps a person who doesn’t make choices isn’t growing, but I think living in a state of perpetual sameness beats suffering in hell. Maybe you’re right. Maybe if somebody had said, “Too bad, guys. You don’t get to live mortal lives and progress to godhood. You’re just gonna have to stay here and exist the way you are now – happy, but not fully happy like God,” then we as spirit children wouldn’t have grown to full maturity because our agency had been taken away. But that doesn’t sound unpleasant to me. Does it sound unpleasant to you – being happy, but not totally happy? Now, imagine for a moment those who are sent to earth who choose to reject god and embrace atheism – those who do not live according to God’s laws, because they believe there is no God. What awaits them? Hell sounds like a terrible place to me. Why should a loving God want to risk any of his children ending up there? If I could force a choice upon someone that would save him or her from hell, I would do it. Perhaps the person wouldn’t achieve full happiness because of my intervention, but at least he or she wouldn’t receive torment. In my mind, it’s better to ensure that all will be content than it is to allow the opportunity for some to suffer and fall short of bliss – knowing full well that many will do so. Does that make sense?

HIJOLLY: Good to hear from you again! I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your post was very useful to me, but there's one aspect I'm afraid I don't understand very well: Doesn't that single admission render all these other statements false? Clearly, if Jesus Christ was divine prior to his mortality, "the mortal body thing" is NOT necessary for a soul's development, and there IS indeed another way. Also: I'm confused. What does the word "unfair" mean to you? In my mind, God's Plan of Salvation seems an unfair concept because its requirements are disproportionate to the abilities of human beings. God wants us to accomplish that which is beyond our means; he would like us all to live sin-free lives. If we did so, according to this plan, we'd be guaranteed eternal celestial glory, and none of us would need Christ's atonement. (In fact, we'd all be eligible for "savior status" ourselves.) It is only because of our inability to avoid sin and resist temptation that Jesus Christ, our redeemer, was needed in the first place. God was aware that we'd need Jesus, so he made the atonement a part of his plan. Obviously, this means the standards are too high, as you said above. If we sin, a price must be paid; divine judgment is upon us. Wrongdoing merits some form of punishment, and the Bible says that this punishment is to be death. (Romans 6:23 -- "For the wages of sin is death...") Somehow it seems fair to you that human beings should be punished -- condemned to death or hell, even -- for failing to achieve the impossible? How can you admit that the standards by which human beings are judged are too high, and yet at the same time insist that the plan itself is fair? I'll borrow a quote from TUBALOTH to further illustrate my point: Unfair Aspect #1: God knew we would fail to live without sinning, because we are frankly incapable of doing so. We can't NOT sin. And yet, for some reason there must be punishment when we DO sin, which is something we can't avoid. Unfair Aspect #2: God also knew that once we failed to meet these ridiculously high standards, there would be nothing we could do to redeem ourselves. (Because apparently, repenting with a sincere heart, asking for forgiveness, and trying hard to do better isn't enough. I thought God was "merciful?") Thus, the atonement of Jesus Christ was necessary. BEING PUNISHED FOR FAILING TO ACHIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE = UNFAIR Right...?

JUSTICE: Thanks for your response. I appreciate you sharing your understanding with me. This explanation was very useful to me. I am accustomed to thinking of God in the traditional mainstream Christian sense. The popular modern version of God did indeed create human beings like works of art, but I can see that the Mormon interpretation of God's nature is different. Thank you for clarifying that point. This aspect continues to confound me. I understand that according to LDS doctrine, Jesus chose to live a sinless life of his own free will. What baffles me is the fact that he was able to. All Christians I have ever spoken with insist that Jesus was the only human being ever to live a perfect life, and that no one else will be able to accomplish this feat. In short, it’s impossible for us. Yet somehow, it was possible for him. How and why? Did he receive that ability from God? If so, then why did God not simply gift the rest of us with that ability as well? And if Jesus's flawlessness did NOT come from God, does that mean he possessed it innately? Did he perhaps come by it some other way? If that is the case, the question still remains: Why was his level of perfection not made available to everyone else? What would be the point in taking a test with the answer sheet in front of you?I don't think that's a fair comparison. Being able to remember my pre-mortal existence wouldn't automatically supply me with the answers to all of life's problems; therefore, it wouldn't be the equivalent of taking a test with the answer sheet in front of me. It would be akin to simply knowing I'm taking a test in the first place. Thanks again for your helpful reply.

Sorry for the long delay! I had some important matters to take care of. I really appreciate all your responses. They're very well-thought-out, not to mention extremely helpful to me. I learned a lot from reading them. I think each of these deserves a thoughtful, individual response. I have each one typed out already, and will post my replies shortly. Once again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I feel that my understanding of the LDS "Plan of Salvation" concept might be flawed. Would anyone be willing to help me correct my views? My current comprehension of the subject is as follows: 1.) In the beginning, all human beings lived as God's "spirit children" in a type of pre-mortal existence, also called the first estate. 2.) God saw that although his children were happy, they did not have the "fullness of happiness" he himself enjoyed. The Heavenly Father wanted his children to experience the same complete joy that he did, and he decided that in order for that to be possible, all of his children would have to live mortal lives. So he came up with the Plan of Salvation. -- a). Why did God's children not have the "fullness of happiness" that he did? In other words, what was preventing them from being completely blissful? -- b). Why was a mortal body necessary for them to eventually achieve happiness and perfection? Isn't God omnipotent? Couldn't he have just made happy and perfect beings? -- c.) If a mortal body is needed in order to achieve a flawless, blissful, god-like status, does this mean that God himself was once mortal? Why and how? 3.) The Heavenly Father called a great gathering of all his spirit children, and presented to them the Plan of Salvation. Apparently, God was well aware that none of his children would be able to completely succeed in this plan, so he arranged for a "redeemer" or "savior" to sacrifice himself and pay for everyone's sins. -- a.) Doesn't the fact that a "savior" was necessary suggest that the plan itself was unfair, and that the standards were set too high? 4.) Two spirit children volunteered to take on the responsibility of the savior: Jesus and Lucifer. Jesus offered to carry out God's plan exactly as he had presented it. Lucifer, on the other hand, wanted to make sure that everyone would be saved by taking away their free will. In return, he asked for glory. A vote was held, and Jesus won the title of "redeemer". -- a.) What's so bad about eliminating people's free will, if the outcome is that all shall be eternally saved? -- b.) Why can't Lucifer be given the glory that he asked for? He came up with a more moral plan. 5.) There was a great war in heaven, and Lucifer was cast out, along with 1/3 of all the other spirit children. None of them would be born into mortal bodies, and none of them would receive a chance at redemption. 6.) The next step in the plan was The Fall. God placed Adam and Eve in the garden, the serpent tempted them, they both ate the forbidden fruit, and then they were cast out into a world of suffering and death. -- a.) Did Adam and Eve volunteer for this position as the first two human beings on earth? -- b.) Did they eat the forbidden fruit on purpose, so that sin could enter into the world and thereby further along the Plan of Salvation? Or did they not remember anything about their pre-mortal lives, just like the rest of us? -- c.) If The Fall was a necessary part of God's plan, and he wanted it to happen, did Adam and Eve really sin by eating the fruit? 7.) The Atonement was also part of God's plan. He arranged for Jesus to live a sinless life, so that he could be our perfect sacrifice. -- a.) If God gave Jesus the power to live a sinless life, why couldn't/didn't he just give that ability to the rest of us as well? -- b.) Why was it necessary for someone to die for all of humanity's sins anyway? Why can't God just forgive sins? Why must there be blood? 8.) The 2/3rds of us who agreed to go along with God's plan have received mortal bodies and been born into the world (although some are still waiting and some have passed on). That's why all of us are here right now. But a veil of forgetfulness was placed over us, so we can't remember anything about our pre-mortal lives. -- a.) Why are we not allowed to recall our pre-mortal lives? What would be the harm in that? What's the point of making us all forget? -- b.) Is it true that some people are born with less privileges than others because they behaved badly during the pre-existence? I'd really appreciate it if somebody would help me figure these things out. Thank you in advance.

GATORMAN: Sorry, but I disagree with that comparison. I know that car companies build vehicles with the understanding that someday they will break down. Humans are imperfect; therefore, we cannot construct flawless machines. Everything we make will require maintenance at some point. But how is this comparable to a perfect, omnipotent god creating people whom he knows will sin -- and not just expecting it to happen, but in fact planning on it? Because it is "part of the plan", right? Humans must endure suffering so they can learn to appreciate relief, and they must commit evil deeds so that they can learn the importance of doing good. "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" (2 Nephi 2:22-23.) My current understanding of LDS doctrine and the "Plan of Salvation" concept might be flawed. If so, perhaps you could help me understand it a little better. Here's how I currently see things: 1.) God knowingly created imperfect beings. 2.) He didn't just expect humans to sin during their mortal lives; he planned on it. 3.) He planned for humans to sin, so that they'd learn eventually to do good. He also planned for humans to sin, so that they'd come to him requesting "maintenance". 4.) God planned all this out so perfectly that he even had a redeemer in place, Jesus, whose grace was available to save those who fell short during their lifetimes. (In other words, everyone.) 5.) Thus, when we repent and turn to God for guidance and salvation, he is not surprised, nor is he dismayed, because he planned for this to happen. He planned for us to suffer so that we'd come to appreciate joy, and he planned for us to sin so that we'd know the importance of doing good. Using your car company comparison, the equivalent would be this: 1.) The Ford company built a bunch of cars that they knew were imperfect. They knew the cars would experience a lot of problems, and quickly break down. 2.) But they didn't just expect the cars to break down and fail; in fact, they planned on it. 3.) Ford planned for the cars to fail so that consumers would keep on coming back to them for maintenance, which helped generate a lot of money for the company. Furthermore, Ford knew that eventually the cars they sold people would stop working altogether, no matter how many repairs were made. And they planned on this happening, too, because they knew that when the consumers' cars broke down, they'd come back to Ford again to make new purchases. They wanted all this to happen. 4.) Ford planned everything out so perfectly that they had entire lineups of replacement cars waiting for those who came in to get rid of their broken vehicles. 5.) Thus, when people return to Ford for car maintenance or to buy a new vehicle altogether, Ford is not worried or surprised, because that is exactly what they planned on. They wanted people's cars to break down, so that the company could generate more money. In other words, they had a purpose in making flawed vehicles. If that were indeed the case with Ford, then yes, I would say that Ford created cars specifically to fail. I understand your point. But all I'm saying is, we wouldn't have to repent if we didn't sin. And can any of us avoid sin? Everyone seems to say no. I wouldn't punish a person for falling off a tightrope into the Pacific Ocean and then not repenting. I would at least give the poor individual another try, because such a feat would require a lot of practice. But we don't get any second chances at life, even though it's apparently just as hard to live a flawless (and therefore repentance-free) life as it is to avoid falling off the tightrope in the previous example. I appreciate your reply, but I still don't see how that's fair, and it still appears to me that God did indeed create people to sin. But as I said before, perhaps I'm just hitting a mental stumbling-block. Any further insights are welcomed. DESIREXNOEL: What is Kolob?

CHANGED: Thanks for the enlightening post! It was very interesting to read about your personal beliefs regarding the Big Bang and the origin of life on Earth (or lack of origin, as you put it), and to see how those beliefs tie in with LDS theology. Also, what you said about the Hebrew word "qen" was quite intriguing. I'd never heard that information before! Thanks again for sharing it with me. At this point, I would agree that matter/energy might not be the only thing that exists -- but then again, it might be. I try to remain open to all possibilities. I can say, though, that I usually prefer to stick with things I'm certain about, and matter/energy falls under that category because its existence can be proven. Anything else does not, because its existence is left up to mere speculation, "feelings", or faith -- all of which often lead people astray. If it metabolizes, reproduces, responds to its environment, grows and develops, and evolves over time, it's alive. I believe that there is but one life, and all living things share in it. I also believe that all life today has been alive since the first life. (The organism itself might be new, but DNA -- that which gives the organism life -- is very old.) Thus, all the cells in the human body contain the same life, which is also shared by all living things on the planet. Life is collective, and it began millions of years ago. We are vessels that carry a small portion of that life for a short time. I believe that death for the individual is not an end to life, since life continues to exist in all other forms of life, and will continue to do so as long as there is life. I hope that makes sense. =) Humans are alive. Robots are not. Humans also feel emotions, which machines are incapable of feeling. So do I, in the sense that I believe there are lots of organisms without flesh and blood that are still biologically alive. I'm not yet convinced that life is anything more than a series of finite chemical reactions. There might indeed be some sort of spiritual force accompanying those reactions; I've just never seen any evidence of such a thing. I hope my answers were helpful to you. Thanks again for the informative post!

I should probably clarify that statement a bit more. I know people who would consider such actions to be sinful if they took place between members of the same sex (holding hands, kissing, etc). But for heterosexual couples, it would be okay.

VORT: Hi again, VORT. Thanks for your response. I was going to say that dating people of both genders could be considered a sin, but then I read this: So I can clearly see that you don't consider such actions to be sinful (although I know some people who do). Whether or not those things can be considered sinful by LDS doctrine is up for debate, I guess, since the Mormon church might not actually have an official stance on that issue. I really don't know enough about Mormon beliefs to make a conclusion, which is why I began this thread in the first place. Please forgive my confusion. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with the LDS concept of man's "agency". On The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I read this quote by David O. McKay: "To man is given a special endowment, not bestowed upon any other living thing. God gave to him the power of choice." Upon reading that passage, I immediately got the impression that mankind's decision-making ability was something with which God gifted him after the act of creation, although I know it doesn't specifically say that. It's just that when I think of the word "gift", I always imagine the recipient of the gift existing first, and then accepting it at some later point in time. (I guess that would be because I've never seen a gift given any other way.) How should I think of man's agency instead? Without question. Now, is the Christian god just? I know, of course, that you will say yes, and will assert that if any of his actions seem unfair, it is only because of my limited ability to comprehend them. I accept this rationalization as a legitimate possibility, but I'll refrain from saying any more on the subject because I'm still trying to form my own opinion about it. So, do Mormons believe that there are scars on the body Jesus currently inhabits? Then they won't be "exactly these bodies". In order for our bodies to be utterly perfect, quite a lot of things would have to change. (At least, I know that is true of my body. ) But I understand what you mean. Thanks for sharing your views. I'm afraid I must admit, though, that my "injustice sense" is tingling. The task you've just described is indeed theoretically possible, and perhaps even possible in a practical sense as well, but it would be so absurdly difficult to accomplish that it might as well be deemed an unattainable goal. I would never punish someone for falling off of that tightrope and therefore failing to complete his journey across the Pacific Ocean. That would be unfair. And yet human beings are supposedly punished for failing to live a life free of sin, which is just as unreachable a standard? To me, that seems ecxeedingly unjust. Perhaps you could offer some insights on this subject; if so, I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks again for your reply.

DESIREXNOEL: Hi again, DESIREXNOEL. Thanks for your response. As far as I was taught... yes and needs to repent take no further actions toward anyone of the same sex.Besides, if they are attracted to both men and women, they are bisexual and that is considered a sin as well... I think we might have misunderstood each other. How can someone who has characteristics from both sexes, and is therefore neither fully male nor fully female, take actions toward someone "of the same sex"? GATORMAN: Thank you for the reply. You said: You have just said yourself that only Jesus Christ can/could live without sinning. You've stated that no other human being "can manage such a life". You've admitted that it's impossible for humans not to sin. I must point out the obvious conclusion: If all humans are inherently sinful and cannot live sinless lives, then all humans are guaranteed to sin at least once. Therefore, sin is inevitable; it cannot be avoided. It must happen, and it will happen. Thus, I do not understand your previous question: According to your own beliefs: 1.) God created human beings. 2.) Human beings are incapable of living sinless lives. (Therefore, humans are guaranteed to sin. They will sin. They must sin. They "have to" sin.) It seems apparent to me that, based on what you believe, the Heavenly Father did indeed create people who "had to" sin. What am I missing?

GATORMAN: Also... -> If a person is born with the body of a male, but grows up thinking and feeling like a female, --> and this person is attracted to men and wishes desperately to be a woman, ---> so, as a result, the person acts and dresses like a woman, and dates men, ----> has the individual sinned? What if the person gets a sex change? Is that a sin, or would it make dating men and living a feminine lifestyle not a sin? What do you think?

GATORMAN: Perhaps I am wrongly inserting mainstream Christian beliefs into LDS doctrine. If so, I apologize. (Please forgive my scant familiarity with the subject; I simply was never taught anything about the Mormon faith.) But maybe you can help me out. Do you believe it's possible for human beings other than Jesus to live sinless lives? Do you believe that human beings are inherently sinful? Do you believe in the concept of original sin? Yes, I understand. Thank you. I never said that same-sex attraction or the state of being of indeterminate gender might be considered sinful. Above, I wrote, "...it wasn't the feeling of gender confusion that I thought might be viewed as a sin; it was the idea of how someone might act as a result of that confusion...It seems plausible to me that intersex or transgendered people might, in their struggle to identify themselves and take on functioning roles in society, commit some actions out of sheer confusion or indecision that constitute actual sins according to LDS doctrine." I think that explains my point well enough. But to put it simply: -> If a person is born with ambiguous sex organs and grows up in a state of confusion (not knowing whether to identify as male or female, and not knowing whether to be attracted to women or men), --> and as a result of their confusion, this person "experiments" with living both masculine and feminine lifestlyes ---> and dates both men and women, ----> has the individual sinned? Thanks for your reply. CHANGED: Hello again, CHANGED. Thank you for the response. What JUSTICE said. :) KRAZYKAY: Thanks for telling your story.

VORT: I'm glad to hear that, although it wasn't the feeling of gender confusion that I thought might be viewed as a sin; it was the idea of how someone might act as a result of that confusion. According to the websites I recently browsed through, Mormons place heavy importance on gender and family roles. It seems plausible to me that intersex or transgendered people might, in their struggle to identify themselves and take on functioning roles in society, commit some actions out of sheer confusion or indecision that constitute actual sins according to LDS doctrine. But I suppose if God is indeed just, he will judge all of his children individually according to their circumstances during life. (I have to admit, though, that based on what little I know of the Old Testament, God does not always act in ways that seem fair to the individual.) Not at all. I agree that, according to the Bible, things like fornication and gluttony are considered sins. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that the Christian god would deem such actions sinful. After all, he himself proclaimed them to be. But should imperfect human beings who are guaranteed to live sinful lives (and, in fact, cannot escape wrongdoing) be punished for succumbing to weaknesses that God personally instilled within them? Well, that's a difficult subject and is probably better left for a different thread. But just for the record, I will say it does seem unfair to me that human beings are supposedly born with sinful natures we cannot evade, which basically renders it impossible for us not to sin; and in addition to that, God ostensibly programs powerful sinful tendencies within each of us (like gluttony); and then when we sin, we are held responsible for those actions and punished for not leading flawless lives -- a goal that is unachievable for us in the first place. That's something on which we'll have to simply agree to disagree, because as I said before, such a discussion is better left for a separate topic. I would hope that God might individualize his judgments for even such a small percentage of his children. But as for basing our laws on the hardships experienced by intersex or transgendered people, I never said anything about that. Thank you, but I was already aware of this. Yes. I suppose I should've been more lucid in my wording. I wrongly assumed that everyone would correctly interpret what I was trying to say because it seemed apparent to me. Obviously, having characteristics from both sexes doesn't make one both fully male and fully female -- at least, not in a biological sense. I was referring to people's sexual identities, which may or may not derive from their biological characteristics -- and yes, it is quite possible to identify as both male and female, or indeed as neither. I'll try to be clearer from now on. Of course we say that. What do you suppose it means to have been created "in God's image"?But our present forms? I was merely pointing out that these flawed bodies we currently inhabit are not said to be eternal. Certainly, according to what I've read of LDS beliefs, we'll have eternal bodies to house our souls after we die, but they won't be these bodies. Our genders, however? Apparently, they will be with us in the premortal existence, the mortal existence, and the Spirit World after death -- and they will remain the same during each stage, not like our physical bodies. This seems a rather trivial point, though, so I'll let it rest. Doesn't it? And he's given us lists of moral rules which, should we violate them somehow, would constitue a sin... hasn't he? (Ten Commandments, anyone?) Your previous post didn't seem to acknowledge the fact that I was speaking of gender confusion in additon to gender-related birth defects. Your most recent one, however, has remedied that situation. Thanks for the apology, but rest assured that you haven't offended me. It's just that your statement "I think you're making the issue out to be far harder than it actually is" seemed to convey a general tone of annoyance, which made me wonder why you had bothered to respond to my question anyway. But no harm done.

VORT: Hi there, VORT. Thanks for your response. I notice you chose to use the word "disproven". Just in case there has been some kind of misunderstanding, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything here. I'm merely asking for a bit of clarification on the concept of "eternal gender". That being said, I think you might have misunderstood me. I know that according to Christian/LDS beliefs, our present mortal bodies are imperfect. My question was not, "Why does God allow people to be born with birth defects?" (Although if it had been, you would've done a fair job of answering it.) It is not the "defect" (if it can be called that) of being born with hard-to-identify genitalia itself that bothers me. It is the fact that God apparently considers it a sin for people to defy their "eternal genders", and then allows people to be born with characteristics that cause gender confusion -- or in some cases, people simply feel like they're men or women trapped within the wrong bodies. I find it difficult to believe that: A.) Gender is specific and eternal B.) If a person defies his/her "eternal gender role" by living a homosexual lifestyle, it is considered a sin C.) But God sees no problem with making it hard or nearly impossible for some people to decide what their sexual identity is by allowing them to have ambiguous genitalia, or letting them feel like they're trapped within bodies of the wrong gender, etc. GOD: "I'm going to punish you if you decide to defy your specific, eternal gender role -- the one that I, myself, gave you! If you go against what is expected of your own gender, it's a sin!" KID 1: "But God, my body has both male and female characteristics. I'm confused and I don't know how to decide what I am!" KID 2: "And God, you gave me a girl's body, but I think and feel like a boy! I don't know what to do either!" Somehow, that doesn't strike me as something a fair god would do. But maybe I'm just hitting a mental block here. This is a gross overgeneralization.I'm sorry. How so? I suppose for the same reason he "creates" people with no legs, no arms, or two heads.Some people are born with birth defects. Okay, I get that. But as far as I'm aware, no one's saying that people's present physical forms have a "divine purpose" and are eternal. But it is being said that people's genders have a divine purpose and are eternal. And apparently, it's a sin to go against your gender role for that very reason. All I'm pointing out is that some people find it very difficult to identify their own gender roles -- especially people with intersexual characteristics. VORT, you clearly don't understand. I'm not just talking about mix-ups with "mortal genitalia". I'm talking about actual "spiritual" confusion (if you will) about gender roles. Sometimes people truly don't know how to sexually identify -- at least, not with any degree of certainty. This might be because of how a person's genitalia has formed, or it might not be. (Although, I can tell you that having ambiguous genitalia certainly doesn't help when it comes to deciding how to identify.) Well, it's an important issue to me, so forgive me for requesting clarification. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, you certainly needn't trouble yourself with any further replies. BYTEBEAR: That is not in the Bible. You are mixing it up with "The meek shall inherit the Earth." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, ... will inherit the Kingdom of God."

BYTEBEAR: Hi! Thanks for responding. Would you mind clarifying one thing? Do you believe it's possible, then, for a man to have the "spirit" of a woman? Today, we know that some men do indeed feel like women trapped within the wrong body. And, based on what you have said, God sometimes allows errors to occur in our physical genders despite the fact that gender is apparently "an important part of our eternal identity". Therefore, perhaps a female "spirit" could be born within a male body -- still a physical error, correct? No worries! I don't. :) AELK: Hello there. Thank you for the response! But wouldn't you agree that a person's genitalia and genetic make-up are important factors that help to determine his/her sexual identity? Can you imagine that someone with ambiguous sex organs might be a little confused? Does it seem plausible to you that some people who are born that way have no idea what to think of themselves, or how to identify? The fact is, some people truly don't know how to answer this question: "Are you male or female?" If there is a "divine purpose" to gender, then why does God allow such confusing mistakes to occur? It seems to me that if a person's sexual identity is so important to God that defying it is considered a sin, everyone should find it easy to label themselves either male or female. But as we can see in real life, that unfortunately is not the case.

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread called "Curious About Mormonism" in which I asked several questions about the LDS faith. It's been a lot of fun to read everybody's answers! Before I came to this forum, I was really unfamiliar with LDS beliefs, but now I'm gaining a lot of understanding by reading what people have to say. I've also been checking out some of the websites that were suggested to me. Overall, it's proving to be a very informative experience! Some of the websites I've been reading are: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon.org - Home, Mormons - Information about the church and its people, and LDS - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Mormons. While browsing through the About.com pages, I came across one entitled "The Church's Teachings on Homosexuality", found at this url. The page says: I cannot help but be curious about these statements. It is a biological fact that some human beings are born with incomplete or ill-formed sexual organs, ambiguous genitalia, or even intersex anatomies. Gender is not always black-and-white, nor is it always easy to determine. Some children are born with characteristics from both sexes, and others seem to be born with characteristics that are completely unidentifiable and baffling to doctors. How does this fit in with the idea that gender is eternal, and that God created each of us "male and female" in his image? Some people simply are neither male nor female, and some people are both. If gender is truly "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose", then why do some people have mixed or ambiguous genders? Why would God create them that way, if a clear-cut gender identity is so important? The page says that we will retain our genders even after death, when we pass on into the Spirit World. Does this mean that intersex people will remain intersexual for all of eternity? But gender is not just "male or female". Some people are both, and some people are neither. If gender is "divine" (it comes from God) and is an important part of our identity, then why would God create people who do not fall in either the male or female category? Please help me understand. I welcome everyone's insights on this issue.

CHANGED: Thanks once again for the useful post. Your insights about the LDS faith in relation to other religions really resonates with me. For a long time, I have thought that all religious denominations claimed to have "the only truth", and that those who chose not to accept that particular truth were hellbound. This made me feel very uneasy in my quest for knowledge, because I worried about believing in "the wrong truth", if you will. But I can see now that I was mistaken in my previous assumption. Thanks very much for clarifying matters! Thanks for the invitation! I'll be sure to do that. Unfortunately, I did come across some anti-Mormon websites while browsing for information on the internet (mostly claiming that the LDS church is a cult and that its members are misled by the devil), but I didn't read very much on those pages, because they seemed more intent on rudely bashing Mormonism than anything else. How does it make you feel to know that some people think of your religion that way? I imagine it would be very hurtful and frustrating. I'm truly sorry that some people choose to insult and criticize Mormon beliefs without even trying to find out more about them. Perhaps if they all came to this forum, they would change their minds! LILERED: Sorry, LILERED. I guess I misunderstood! I'd be glad to tell you more about what I've believed up until this point. 1.) Why am I here on earth? (For what purpose?) For most of my life, it has been my understanding that I am here on earth because my father's sperm fertilized my mother's egg and brought me into existence; which took place because at some point down the evolutionary line, homo sapiens diverged from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees; which happened because many billions of years ago, self-replicating life formed in the chemical-rich oceans of the primeval earth; which was made possible because the Big Bang caused all the matter and energy within our universe (previously condensed into the singularity) start to expand; and what happened before that, I don't know. In other words, I am a sentient carbon-based organism living on planet earth due to mostly random circumstances, with no inherent "purpose" whatsoever. But does this mean that, so far, I have been completely closed off to the possibility of there being a purpose to my life? Absolutely not! If there is indeed a purpose, I'd very much like to know about it. In fact, that's why I'm here on this forum! 2.) Where did I come from? (Before I was born?) I came from a zygote within my mother's womb. Before I was a zygote, I was an unfertilized egg, one of thousands within my mother's ovaries. I did not have a consciousness because I did not have a mind; my consciousness began once my brain was fully formed. Do I believe that I am absolutely right in my thinking, and that anyone who thinks differently is deluded and wrong? No way! It's just that this has always seemed like the most probable and reasonable explanation of where I came from, so this is what I've stuck to. 3.) When my life is over, and I when I die, where am I a going ? (Or is that all there is to it?) I've always supposed that when I die, I will feel the same way I did before I was born -- in other words, I will feel and experience nothing at all. I will remember nothing because I will know nothing. I will have no consciousness at all, because consciousness comes from a functioning brain, and after death my brain will no longer function. To some people, that thought is cold and frightening. To me, however, it has always seemed like the ultimate peace. Do I deny the possible existence of an afterlife? Nope! (Although I must admit, there are some forms of post-mortal existence I'd be much quicker to deny than others -- like hell, because it seems to be kind of an immoral concept). But I know that just because something is uncomfortable to think about, that doesn't make it false. And I'm quite sure that if heaven and hell do exist, heaven is where I want to go! To summarize, I've lived a mostly naturalistic lifestyle grounded in scientific reality -- what is provable, observable, and testable. Might there be more to life that I'm missing out on? Certainly! That's why I'm investigating different religions right now. If there is more to life, then I don't want to continue to miss out on it. Hope that helps! :) MNN727: Thanks for the advice!

DESERETGOV: That's a very good thought. I think you're right about that! That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for sharing your insights! To be honest, what you said makes a lot more sense in my mind than what some other people say -- that unless your beliefs and practices are just right, you'll be burning in hell for all of eternity. It seems to me that a fair and righteous god, like the one Christians describe, would not punish people indiscriminately like that. I'm glad you clarified your position on this subject. It was very helpful to me! CHANGED: I do not doubt it because of witnesses I have recieved about it.Hi, CHANGED. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. But I have to ask, what do you mean by "witnesses"? Do you mean visions, or signs? It would be really great if you could clarify that for me. Thanks! :) Other than that, I really enjoyed reading about your supernatural experience. It sounds like it was very moving. Also, your thoughts on Hinduism and the "truths" present there (as well as in other religions) were really intriguing to read. Unfortunately, I'm not used to hearing such tolerant statements from religious people. It's such a relief to read things that make me feel hopeful about my search for truth! Thanks again!