Seminarysnoozer

All I can find are quotes regarding Adam and not "human species" but maybe I am not looking hard enough. For example, from "The origin of man" is states; "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race." Again, I think there is a difference between what God created in the Garden vs the fallen world creatures after the Fall, including the effects the Fall had on the human body. These statements also don't preclude the possibility that when the sons of God marry the "daughters of men" that there be some 'horse plus donkey = mule' going on. We would still be descendents of the first man but also fulfil the idea that we have corrupted bodies and have a life span something less than 930 years. May it be possible that the mix was too corrupted at the time of Noah, and had to be re-balanced? Again "human" from a religious stand point means physical body in which a spirit child of God is placed. That started with Adam who was created. So, that is not speaking of any other kind of creature development that does not have a spirit child of God in it. The religious definition of species and their "kind" might be the form of the creation in which that entity will be resurrected in. Species may not be so well represented by the sum total of all the mutations and corruption that has taken place since the Garden of Eden to make the animal into its varied forms. (this is my speculation) In other words a fox and a polar bear might really be of the original creation line of what ended up being Carnivora (interestingly no meat eating in the Garden of Eden), so the pre-Fall Carnivora animal might be the primal parent of both the bear and the fox which may be the "kind" it will be in resurrection. We don't know how grouped or divided those lines are other than Adam named them all, which makes it seem like there weren't thousands or millions of "kinds".

How would a fish becoming like a man fit your requirements of "a whole new species unlike, in any detail, to its progenitor"? If that were possible to turn a fish into a man it would still share some features with some detail. It would share some DNA pairiings, enzymatic functions, some similar cell structure etc. All creatures in the world have some things in common, we could find some detailed similarities in almost all creatures, so that is a straw man argument. The truth is that scientist have been making synthetic life for a long time. Scientists can manipulate the DNA structure and pairs to produce a new version of the species that had never existed before and would not be found in "nature". Plasmids are put into E. Coli DNA and different proteins are made as a result, for example. What you are asking about sounds like something that has already been done; "The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA." They extracted the DNA from one completely different organism, synthetically produced the DNA and put it into that cell with the original DNA removed and created a whole new species from which it could reproduce on its own that newly created species. Is that not proof enough that it could be done? God knowing all the DNA arrangements of every species as "it has always been done" could plop that into material prepared from the Earth and form all sorts of living things that did not have a "mother" of natural birth. Why not?

This is a discussion in relation to your use of the words "eternal conflict". A separation of any kind, no matter who or what is limited, would suggest no conflict. My question was rhetorical (as you like to say) as evil does not attempt to be where God is, it does the opposite, draws people away from God. There is no limit to God but there is a limit to evil and Satan. Moses 4; "20 And I, the Lord God, said unto the serpent: Because thou hast done this thou shalt be cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; 21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." God "put" emnity between Satan and man. He is in control of its "limits". It was done for the specific purpose of the second estate test, to see if man would do the things God asks. After the second estate test there is no use for such emnity. The emnity will be overcome by Christ, thus doing away with the so-called "eternal conflict". So, that is why I ask what you mean by "eternal conflict". For any one person is the conflict eternal? Or are you simply refering to the eternal round of God with each cycle of 'second estate' tests (or something else).

Yes, that is the story of the Garden of Eden. A singular creation, each species of its kind from which all other varieties occured as a result of the Fall. God created one man and one woman from which the variety of the human race spawns. We, unfortunately, have no ability to see what God created, "each different kind of creature" because what He created was in the Garden of Eden. Then there was a Fall from that creation to something else. What we currently see around us and likely even in the fosil record is the result of the Fall, not what God created in the Garden of Eden. By definition, the paradisiacal creations don't die and therefore there would be no fosil record of God's creations. The fosil record is a tracing of the things that die, those are things created by the Fall. By definition then, Evolution as described by scientists would have to be a descrition of a corrupted, ever mutating and changing from the original process, which I think it is. Christian religion speaks of the goal of being one, Evolution speaks of the goal of becoming specialized, unique and of various forms. These are opposing purposes and directions. The greater purpose of God is to reverse the effects of evolution, to restore the creation to its original, the Garden of Eden version. Evolution serves its purpose, a carnal, corrupted varied from the straight and narrow purpose for a short period of time. Gods message has never been 'be unique', 'be unlike me', 'do what comes natural', 'make sure to separate and distinguish yourself from your neighbor'. There are many who do just that and few that try to be 'one' with God. What the world gets wrong in this discussion is the idea that God "created" all the things that were actually created by the effects from the Fall. Yes, secondarily, He allowed for it to happen and all things come from Him originally but the workings of man as well as the influence of Satan are allowed to happen in this existence and the fruit of that agency and that temporary influence is what we see around us. The whole world was changed at the Fall. This is not a pure, God acting by Himself creation around us.

Sure, one of the blinding tools of Satan is to cause good people to say "all is well", I have done enough, 'I have been good, is that not enough?' Here is what "living the gospel" means from Jesus' words in Mark 10; " 17 ¶And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." The cutting line between those that live the gospel is not determined by whether someone is "good" or "bad". This young man was not a bad person, he followed the commandments but he lacked something, he lacked giving up his lifestyle, in this case riches, and leaving the comforts of where he was at in life to follow Christ. One could be a follower of the commandments without following Christ (living the gospel). This young man is an example of such a thing as well as all those that make it into the Terrestrial Kingdom, they are "honerable men of the world".

According to Doctrines of the Gospel; "No principle in time or eternity is so cherished as the right of agency, the right to consider alternatives and make choices without compulsion. A war was waged in heaven over our agency—a war that was transferred to earth. Satan is determined to blind, bind, and lead captive through ignorance and sin everyone he can. Understanding our agency is imperative for our spiritual survival and fulfillment in Christ." I guess the question is whether being a little bit faithful as opposed to exceeding faithful is really an "alternative". To me, being less valiant is not an "alternative" or opposing choice and that is why it is called being valiant over simply being called righteous. The choices before the War in Heaven started were, as far as I understand it, to be faithful graded all the way to having exceedingly great faith. At least all those that arrived at the point of being able to potentially move on to the second estate test had to have the capability of accepting the second estate test. Could God offer someone the second estate option if they were evil? If He could then the first estate test was not a description of agency but a judgement and all those that were evil by nature simply followed Lucifer. Being cast out implies there was some judgement. Would God cast judgement for a law that the person could not fufil in the first place? So, I am assuming all those spirits that found their self at the point of being involved in the War in Heaven had the ability to choose between Lucifer's plan or God's. If they could really choose God's plan then they were righteous enough to do so, they had been faithful, not evil, up until that point. Were all those that were cast out lose something with their choice or was it never theirs in the first place, they never could have made it into the Second Estate? In order for there to be agency with the War in Heaven, all those spirits involved had to have the second estate option possible, otherwise there was no real choice. So, the cast out spirits had to have been faithful enough to qualify for the second estate option. How does God distinguish between those with exceeding faith (as in Alma 13:3) from those that have mediocre faith? I don't know the answer to that question but I would guess it has to do with knowing the desires of the heart of that individual. One of the antonyms of Valiant is "weakhearted". Evil is not the opposite of "valiant". Also understand that one of the purposes of the second estate test is to grade out a degree of glory (a reward for being good). Meaning all those that make it here had faith but not all were valiant. So it is possible to have faith and be righteous but not be valiant. If they were evil they would have been cast out with the third part but they were not and they were righteous enough to merit a degree of glory forever and to receive a body, they are all good to some degree (with maybe the exception of the sons of perdition). Would you describe the numerous souls that make it into the Telestial Kingdom as evil or less valiant? Can one be evil and be in the presence of the Holy Ghost as those that find their self in the Telestial Kingdom? Unless you want to say that everyone who passed the first estate test could be described as having exceedingly great faith and valiant, then the opposite of valiant is not evil. In my view, there was no evil soul that passed the first estate test.

I think one of the tougher tests of this world is to distinguish good from better. It is a little more straight forward when we describe good from evil. In the same light I think it is sometimes hard to describe those that will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom from those that end up in the Celestial Kingdom as it is a degree of good to better we are talking about. As explained in D&C; " 72 Behold, these are they who died without law; 73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; 74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. 75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. 76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. 77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. 78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. 79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." Receiving of his glory is not everything, it is good but not better. It is better to receive the law, and to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus, meaning being true to the testimony with all of one's heart might mind and strength. Terrestrial beings are not bad or evil but being good isn't always the best. They receive the presence of the Son but not the fullness of the Father.

But remember that agency was given for that first estate test. That doesn't have to mean that agency was around the whole time. (distinguishing agency from different levels of being valiant.) I agree with your description of the Celestial Kingdom, that evil is in existence but not in the presence of the Celestial Kingdom. It may be along the lines of one can be in the world without being of the world or that it simply isn't found in the Celestial Kingdom.

Thanks, I completely agree with your quotes and statements here. I guess I am trying to explain to those reading this that the term "man" and the use of the word "flesh" of man refers only to beings that are the offspring of God. I also believe that Adam and Eve are the first of our race as you have quoted but that does not preclude the preparation for mortality including creations that are human-like but not man. I would also consider the idea that "our race" really is not the current body we have. Our current body is a fallen one which is in the image of God but had to be transformed from the Garden of Eden version that Adam and Eve first received. Our race is the type that lives forever. Our current body could not fit that description any more than one could say that an ape is like a human. Our bodies (not spirit) have more in common with an ape right now with this current fallen body than we do with a being that lives forever. And that is why I think it is easy to forget who we really are and people start to accept their fallen state as self. Part of our Earthly test is to avoid spiritually internalizing carnal traits, to avoid calling the physical carnal body, self. Of course, if one believes that we did not fall that far from the paradisical state to our current state then one would believe there hardly is any difference. But if we did not fall that far, then Christ' atoning act is no big deal. The magnitude of the Fall is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Atonement. To me, those were big events. If those were big events then our current physical body is far from being like "our race". To become "our race" a humanoid body would have to have been first created as a perfect, paradisiacal body in surroundings that were perfect and then fall from that state. Obviously, that does not describe the process of evolution, it is more lke the opposite direction, a down grade. The down grade or temporary state will be reversed and then we will go back to being "our race". Human pride centers around the idea that we are upgraded versions of previous forms and that is the evil of the theories of evolution. Whereas, humility comes from realizing that we are in a fallen state from the original creation, fallen so far that we can't get out of the pit without help, we couldn't naturally get back to that state. Satan loves to try to teach people that they don't need God or His ways to be like God, that they can somehow naturally get there on their own.

Like I said in the first response to your statement, I am not questioning whether evil will always exist, just questioning the use of the word "conflict" as something that is eternal for any given individual. Lets say it the other way around, can evil withstand the presence of God? That is not a question regarding its existence or its opposition. Can there not be something that exists and opposes God but not be in His presence, therefore, there is no conflict? If they don't exist in the same place then there is no conflict. When things are in their proper place then there is no conflict but when things are placed out of their proper place then there is conflict, like our pure spirits being placed in a fallen world. The final judgement is the placing of everything in its proper place, 'the conflict is o'er', after Christ fully overcomes the fallen, opposing, world. Do you believe it is possible for an individual who receives a Celestial glory to sin? If a Celestial being sins, then did God make a correct judgement about that person? How can God make an incorrect final judgement? If a Celestial being cannot sin then it is not a possibility, any more than God could sin. So, for a Celestial being evil is not a possibility.

The scripture in Ether, I think you are refering to, states the first flesh is the first "living soul". We are told that animals have souls but what is a "living soul"? I think Joseph Fielding Smith's own words are appropriate since you referenced him, he stated animals do not have a conscience. They cannot sin and they cannot repent, for they have not the knowledge of right and wrong. (Man: His Origin and Destiny, Deseret Book Co., 1954, pp. 204–5.) - And yet we are told that animals have souls. But they don't have "living souls", souls with a conscience. So, is it possible that the "first flesh" really only refers to man, meaning a living soul that has consciousness. What is an animal? Any flesh with a spirit that does not have a conscience. That, to me, could include any shape or form of animal no matter how closely it resembles a human being that does not have a conscience. People may call animals that closely resemble man, man's ancestors. But as we know "man" is a spirit son or daughter placed into a body that resembles the form of God, then a non-spirit child placed in any body, whether it resembles the shape of God or not, is not "man". From LDS.org the definition of man is; "Refers to all mankind, both male and female. All men and women are the literal, spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father. When they are born into mortality, they receive physical, mortal bodies. These bodies were created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–27). Men and women who are faithful in receiving the necessary ordinances, keeping their covenants, and obeying God’s commands will enter into their exaltation and become as God." So, like animals, anything that recieved a spirit that is not the literal offspring of a Heavenly Father is not man and therefore cannot be the first flesh. Adam was the first literal offspring of a Heavenly Father to be placed in a body that is in the form or image of God. That, by itself, does not exclude the possibility of a spirit that is not a spirit child of God to be placed into a body that has a humanoid appearance. Of course there is the issue of not having death before Adam but we don't know how long it took for Adam to be removed from the Garden after the Fall. How long does it take for a paradisiacal body to transform into a fallen mortal body? Maybe a couple 100 thousand years? I don't know.

Ok, then, will justice be satisfied or will there be "eternal conflict"?

Thanks for your comments. I think you are ready to move onto bigger topics. One aspect of the gospel in which you might go deeper in your faith is that of having an understanding, appreciation and testimony in the need for covenants. Hebrews 8; " 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Once one has a testimony for the need for covenants both as a group and as an individual then one understands the need for the Priesthood. If there is a need for the Priesthood then there is a need for the organization of the body of Christ, the church, which contains the correct authority and instruction to carry out such covenants. The first few covenants being baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost followed by many more. With those covenants ones capacity to love is greater as well as ones capacity to understand spiritual things. That is the next thing to ponder. Similar to the ceremony of marriage, there is a special relationship established between God and the individual making the covenant with the correct authority. There is a type of teamwork that is not found without the covenant. That is how the capacity to love and understand is expanded while being under the covenant. Read through the many parables given about stewards and servants, these are examples of special relationships with the Lord done with authority.

I think, too, being debt free and having food storage alleviates the need to focus on carnal things so much. We have finally got out of major debt recently and I find I have more time to focus on spiritual things. I am not spending half my day trying to go over hospital bills and home bills and pushing money here and there to make sure we don't get into trouble. Also by doing food storage I have found that we don't go out to eat as often and waste money that way. Maybe that is a strange association but I have been more careful with my food purchases as well. By not focusing on carnal things as much we make ourselves more spiritual even if the "big event" doesn't occur soon. I think it puts a new twist on the scripture verses; "31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." If one is living from paycheck to paycheck then the thought is always "what shall we eat, wherewithall shall we be clothed" etc. In other words, by not living on the credit card we dont think so much about where we are going to eat tonight or what clothes to buy. Those options are often off the table when living within our means.

Let me rephrase the question. I didn't ask if there would be no evil. You stated "eternal conflict between "good" and "evil"". Is the conflict eternal for any given person or is there an end to the conflict at some point ? When we sing in church, "We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er" we are singing about a false ideal?

Great response and I hope not to detract from it because you stated it so well. One question spawned from your statement. You used the word eternal to describe the conflict between "good" and "evil" whereas I look at that conflict as temporary. Were you using the word "eternal" to mean part of the eternal round and it is an eternal principle pertaining to mortality or were you using the word "eternal" to mean that the conflict will always be around or some other meaning? My understanding is that Christ will overcome all evil at the end of the Millenium and all that find their self on the right hand of God will enter unto His rest. D&C 29; "27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father; 28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 29 And now, behold, I say unto you, never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth that they should return, for where I am they cannot come, for they have no power." and Revelations 20; "10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." Alma 12; " 34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest." Joseph F. Smith explains that "enter into my rest" means all doubt and fear and the cunningness of men have been cast from him, sounds like the battle is over for that person. and D&C 59; " 23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come." So, even if there is "eternal" conflict between good and evil we do maintain the hope that through righteousness we will come unto Christ's rest and the conflict will be over for us one day with peace throughout our eternal life.

I disagree with the idea that our vices and virtues are down to our own choices directly. (key word being directly) I am sure some will disagree with me as far as that goes. We have all been given different challenges and trials in this life. For some it may be a genetic propensity for alcoholism, for example. If one chooses never to drink alcohol then it is not a problem. If one, however, chooses to drink and there is a genetic drive for alcoholism then the trap has been sprung which may be very difficult to get out of. The why's related to why someone has this trial vs another is something we are not privy to at this time. Another might be given a genetic drive towards same sex attraction, etc. We can say for sure that our carnal body's drives will be different than our spiritual inclinations and that is what presents the test we face, that is what sets up the test and the challenge. We are not expected to overcome the challenges of this life on our own and this seems fair because we did not cause the challenge on our own. As Christ answered the question of who sinned to make the blind man blind from birth and He answered it was neither the blind man or his parents. At the same time, it is not an accident. Certain challenges and trials are specifically placed for our test in life and our development. Also keep in mind that again we believe that we are currently dual beings with opposing natures, one carnal and one spiritual. The carnal self is not really self, it is a temporary stewardship from which we are to show our faithfulness. See the parable of the ten talents. The talents were given in the beginning of the parable, the stewards did not come up with the talents on their own, they were temporary stewardships.

Right, as Just_A_Guy stated, substitute the word "Mormons" with followers of Christ. And realize that we are all born with some "light of Christ" - still all followers of Christ at birth. (side note - this is one of the reasons why we don't baptize infants)

"Good" in a religious sense is equivalent to eternal in nature. If we are good then we can live in a state of being "one" with God to various degrees and become co-eternal with Him. This corresponds to making our will His will. In areas that we are successful in doing that, those acts wil become eternal. In the areas that we are not succsessful they will not be eternal, they will turn to dust and be erased by the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The trouble in the concept is in believing that "God" is a single individual in the context of saying that all goodness comes from God. There is a single God but when taking about goodness, eternal nature, light etc. and those kinds of phrases it is in reference to the greater meaning of "God", the part that refers to what it means to be one with God as Christ is one with God and as Christ prayed that we also be one with God. It is God plus all of His works and society/organization that are good as all those things are eternal in nature and will continue beyond this life. Things that are eternal are good.

Mormons believe that we all believed in Christ and His plan before coming here. There was an assessment of that belief that we call the First estate. If one believed and had faith in a Savior then one passed the first estate test. If not then they followed Lucifer in his rebelion against that plan, they essentially did not believe that a Savior could help them. So, the weeding out of who believed and who didn't believe has already taken place. Now we face a test of integrity, in other words, to what degree did we believe in Christ. Do we believe in Christ despite being behind a veil of forgetfulness and being tempted by carnal things or do we give into the carnal nature and forget about our spiritual upbringing. Kind of like when a young adult leaves the home, do they follow what their parents taught or are they swept away by the temptations of the world. That is the kind of test we face now having already stated that we believe in Christ before the test began. To what degree do we believe in Christ and have faith in God. It is a test of Character, a test of integrity or what we sometimes say; 'the desire of the heart' or true nature. The various challenges we face in life do not reflect in a one to one way our spirituality. Some that were very successful in the previous life are born with conditions like Down's syndrome others that were very successful in the previous life might have special callings such as becoming a general authority for the church or maybe being the first one in their family to accept the gospel which allows for generations to follow in the same path. Some who were successful in the previous life might be born at a time when the gospel was not around or in a place where it could not be received and so will receive it in the spirit world. The degrees of glory in the next life can hardly be measured by our acts in this world because it has to be judged in light of the desire of the heart and what was given in this life. Where much is given much is required. God will be the judge of that, looking at all the variables we cannot see at this time.

No, again, you take this all or nothing approach that is difficult to understand. To some it is beneficial but to most it is a test. Just like some people actually learn something during a final exam whereas one hopes to have learned all they could before going into the final exam. Rifinement occurs, experience occurs, being able to appreciate occurs, placing the knowledge we have in a certain context, the context of good and evil occurs. We are to forsake the things of this world, the physical body is one of them. Christ forsake the physical body, he died for good. The body is not us. The spirit lives on and does not die. There is nothing lost in our physical death as we will be one day resurrected in a body that never dies. Mortality is a forward path, not an evil one or a backward one. Death is part of mortality and therefore the physical death is not evil or harmful in any way. It is a necessary step to go onto obtaining a perfect body. It is Lucifer's plan to make everyone as miserable as he is now. But when taking about Lucifer's plan you have to designate before or after the casting out. Before the war in Heaven he just wanted to take what he thought was his inheritance without having to go through the second estate test. During that war he rebelled. Did he pull those that followed him in "light" or in "darkness"? In other words, did a third of the host of heaven leave the plan because they were tricked or because they rebelled in light? The first estate test was in "light" the second estate test occurs according to the flesh = "darkness". Otherwise you are going to have to say that a third of the host of heaven were cast out because they were kept in darkness, they were decieved and tricked and fooled. Consider the idea that in order for one to become a son of perdition they have to be "in the light." In other words, to be cast out, one has to have witness of the Holy Ghost. That does not sound like being in the darkness to me. Whereas in this life we are judged and put into a Kingdom of Glory even when we sin even when we are in darkness. How is it that sinners can receive a degree of glory? Because they already passed the test while being in the light, the first estate test. The judgement of this life is according to the flesh which is a very important statement making it different than tests that are not done according to the flesh.

Flaky, white like corriander seed, falling from Heaven, melts in the sun, spoils overnight; sounds like birds would be a good "mana machine" better than aliens. Yeah, I like watching the show too.

For you, that may very well be your assignment in this life and for you that is the your great opportunity. How can I argue with that. God will tell you, if you are in tune, to whatever task He would have you do through the spirit of the Holy Ghost. But that does not make it a universal task or a necessary task during mortality for everyone's salvation. Otherwise, infants would have died failing that task. And we know that is not true. I never said it wasn't beneficial, that is your misconception of what I have said. I have only said that it is not necessary in every case. For example, those that die before the age of 8 need no such lesson, they have already proven and shown they understand such lessons that "faith is necessary in order to move from darkness into the light of truth". They already have that down. For you and I, yes we need to learn that lesson by experience but the experience may come in different ways, like the gift fo the spirit for some is to have faith in others. 8 million deaths under the age of 5 per year says not everyone needs that lesson while in mortality. I have never read anywhere that Lucifer's plan was to assign anything. He wanted to give and provide without assignments. He wanted to give without taking any risk for failure but he didn't realize that you can't win without risk for losing. Desire is stronger than knowledge. God will judge us based on the desires of our heart and very little of the final judgement will be based in how much knowledge we actually acquired unless that was part of our specific assignment in this world. If someone is born into captivity and/or has very little capability to learn by circumstance or disability; the desire to learn will carry them through in the next life because whatever spirit (desires of the heart) is held at death will continue and when they are introduced to the gospel in the spirit world, they will recognize it and accept it. To some the "light of truth" is based in the testimony of others. D&C 46; " 14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." God intended that we first have faith, second repentence, third baptism for the remission of sins and fourth receive the Holy Ghost. Those are the first steps to follow while in this life. In the pre-existence, there were different circumstances. There everyone was in the "light of truth". That was called the first estate. I am glad you want to be a champion for the first estate because we rarely talk about it. But remember we all passed that test. Now we face a different test with different circumstances already having satisfied your zelous ideal that we make a choice in the light of truth. That was done, lets move on.

God having a Father is implied and consistent with our belief that we can become like our Father and that He truly is the Father of our spirits, we are His offspring. We also do not believe in ex nihilo creation. I think that is one of the biggest hang ups Christians have about believing God had a Father. This is also consistent with the early teachings of the Church after the apostles explained on LDS.org as this; "Latter-day Saint beliefs would have sounded more familiar to the earliest generations of Christians than they do to many modern Christians. Many church fathers (influential theologians and teachers in early Christianity) spoke approvingly of the idea that humans can become divine. One modern scholar refers to the “ubiquity of the doctrine of deification”—the teaching that humans could become God—in the first centuries after Christ’s death.11 The church father Irenaeus, who died about A.D. 202, asserted that Jesus Christ “did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be what He is Himself.”12 Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150–215) wrote that “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.”13 Basil the Great (A.D. 330–379) also celebrated this prospect—not just “being made like to God,” but “highest of all, the being made God.”14 What exactly the early church fathers meant when they spoke of becoming God is open to interpretation,15 but it is clear that references to deification became more contested in the late Roman period and were infrequent by the medieval era. The first known objection by a church father to teaching deification came in the fifth century.16 By the sixth century, teachings on “becoming God” appear more limited in scope, as in the definition provided by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (ca. A.D. 500): “Deification … is the attaining of likeness to God and union with him so far as is possible.”17 Why did these beliefs fade from prominence? Changing perspectives on the creation of the world may have contributed to the gradual shift toward more limited views of human potential. The earliest Jewish and Christian commentaries on the Creation assumed that God had organized the world out of preexisting materials, emphasizing the goodness of God in shaping such a life-sustaining order.18 But the incursion of new philosophical ideas in the second century led to the development of a doctrine that God created the universe ex nihilo—“out of nothing.” This ultimately became the dominant teaching about the Creation within the Christian world.19 In order to emphasize God’s power, many theologians reasoned that nothing could have existed for as long as He had. It became important in Christian circles to assert that God had originally been completely alone."

Why does it have to be that we knew what would occur? Why can it not be like wanting to go on a mission - "I will go wherever I am sent" kind of thing? I accept the call wherever it may be and whatever it may be. We accept it in faith that it will be the right thing and then we are told what it is and still accept it.