Seminarysnoozer

Thanks, great answer.

Thanks for your response. I easily comprehend the sacredness of a temple which is actively being used but I am having a harder time understanding the significance of a "sacred space" because of past events or even future events for that matter. How is that land any more "sacred" than the space that is 10 miles north, south east or west of it? Isn't this whole earth dedicated to God's work and purpose. How is one spot any more sacred than another because something happened there a long time ago or something will happen in the future there? Why is Adam-Ondi-Ahman any more sacred than my local temple? I understand this will happen, but I am trying to understand the reason ... Why does Jesus have to return to a specific place and not simply to His people at any given place (or temple) where they happened to be gathered when He comes back? I guess I just don't see how that would affect my testimony or even symbolic understanding of the gospel if I were to think that the gathering place was in Brazil or China or Russia or wherever.

Reading through Ezekiel this week, anticipating the Gospel Doctrine class and started to wonder why location is so important. Why exactly does the temple have to be rebuilt in Jerusalem? Besides saying "because it fulfills the prophecies", is there a reason that location is important to God? Why not anywhere in the world. The whole world is His footstool. What difference does it make where these events occur? Why is the location Adam-ondi-amon important? Even if it is where Adam and Eve dwelt after they left the Garden of Eden or whatever historical significance it had, why is that location an important meeting place in the future. Why not just all meet where most of the saints are located, or the headquarters are located at that time. In other words, are these prophecies simply saying this is where it is going to happen and there is nothing more to it. Or, do the locations, the land, that place have some significant power or purpose in and of themselves that make it necessary for those things to happen only there? Why does the house of Israel, literally have to gather in that location? Yes, I realize the gathering takes place all over the world in individual wards and stakes etc. But why is it also important that the lord wants to give back to the Israelites the same land as their fathers? Why not keep them where they are at, or give them new land? Why is that place so important? “But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:14–15). thanks.

I have brought that idea up in previous conversations about evolution which seems to be ignored for the most part because I think in general most LDS believe every living creature has its own unique separate spirit associated with that entity. I am not sure about that and still ponder the possibility of life without an individual spirit attached to it. Like the heart kept alive for a length of time ready to be transplanted into someone else after the person has died. Or the fetus in the womb that does not produce a "quickening" and is stillborn. etc. I think this is a reasonable idea, by definition if Adam and Eve were the first hominids to have an "intelligence" spirit put into them, then they would be the first man. And if the life forms before that had no individual spirit attached to them then there could be no "death" as death is the separation of the spirit from the body and the spirit lives on as a separate entity. Just like the earth has a "spirit" form, or a rock or the moon has a spirit form, I don't think it is too far off to say that other creatures may have that kind of spirit. Otherwise, if there are individual spirits for each rock out there that would be a lot of spirits, and if I break a rock in half have I created now two spirits? Just like harvesting a kidney from someone who remains alive, as the kidney is sitting in the red cooler, does it have a separate spirit attached to it? ... it is alive.

I sometimes ask myself the opposite question, I wonder if there was anyone that we weren't friends with. We are sometimes told that Satan knows all of us and our weaknesses. If, Satan, even with his selfish game plan knows us that well, I would think that we knew each other even better than he did. The thing that is variable though is how thin the veil becomes with certain people. There may be reasons that with any particular person HF has decided to open the veil a little and remind us of past relationships. I also tend to think that our paths were much more similar than they were different in the past life. Yes, some were more valiant than others but the general ambition and purpose were probably a lot more alike than they were different like they are in this life. So, when we see someone that we may have known well in the pre-existence we may be recognizing similar features that we had ourselves.

I agree with what has been said so far. The temple is for the individual attending the session, to learn more about her/his relationship with God and the plan. I don't think it was ever intended as a lecture on anthropology. As Russel M. Nelson said, "In this house of learning, we are taught in the Lord’s way. His ways are not our ways. We should not be surprised if teaching techniques differ from those employed in educational pursuits more familiar to us. Temple ordinances and covenants have been an integral part of the gospel since the days of Adam and Eve. Anciently, symbols were used to teach profound truths, and this method of instruction is used in the temple today. It is necessary, therefore, that we ponder the symbols presented in the temple and see the mighty realities for which each symbol stands. “The temple ordinances are so imbued with symbolic meaning as to provide a lifetime of productive contemplation and learning.” The teachings of the temple are beautifully simple and simply beautiful. They are understood by those who have had little opportunity for education, yet they can excite the intellect of the highly educated."

Thanks for your response. I will try to get through as much as I can right now, but may have to come back to some of these quotes you gave. I agree with the first part but that is why I am having a hard time understanding why you don't see that there is a difference between mortal birth and Adam and Eve's start or an "immortal birth" if you want to call it that. There has been no argument that there is a difference between mortal birth and resurrection. The question is more related to how this all began with Adam and Eve as that was not a mortal birth. We have limited knowledge as to the creation of immortal bodies, but most of it comes from our knowledge of resurrection. So, I think it is best to compare Adam and Eve's body creation to resurrection over comparing Adam and Eve's body creation to a mortal birth. I know you tend to see it that way so it is easier to compare those two in your mind but I think that is because you have a preconceived idea that Adam and Eve's bodies were birthed. I'll have to come back to some of these quotes, not enough time. ... as for the Joseph F. Smith post; that is a comment about evolution which is not what we are discussing. He is simply stating that Adam and Eve's body did not come from another life form. I am not arguing that either. In fact, one proposal that I gave would be in perfect alignment with his statement because I am saying there is a possibility that God made Adam and Eve's body out of raw elements and therefore it would not have come from any other lesser animal. There is nothing there against what I am saying. That would be an argument against Adam and Eve's body coming from a neanderthal relative etc. Genesis 2:24 is Moses speaking to his people and speaking to us. That because God so that it was important for Man to not be alone, we must also realize that God intended woman and man to be together as one right from the beginning. I think you are over interpreting that verse to say that Adam had a mother of his physical body. ... in my opinion. .... I'll have to continue this later, not enough time. Thanks again for the discussion.

Okay ... outside the fact that it fulfills the prophecy, is there any other value?

What value does the earthly family tree have in the hereafter anyways? Will we not associate with all of our good brothers and sisters of the same kingdom? Outside the obvious, it would be nice to continue with relationships I have had here in this life, why would I necessarily care or why would Jesus care for that matter who his great great grandfather was in this world? Are we not all brothers and sisters?

That is wonderful speculation. The point of this line of discussion, at least from my end, was to say that it is within God's power to make Adam and Eve's bodies in the garden of Eden without having to transplant anything from another world or an old world, by just using the materials that are here on this planet. I have never asked you to speculate how it is done. I have only suggested you consider the fact that it can be done. If you think it can then I don't see any reason to say that it could not be done for Adam and Eve's immortal bodies in the Garden of Eden. You say that resurrection is vastly different than the Adam and Eve's creation, of course I agree with that but I would say that the creation of an immortal body (Adam and Eve's body in the garden of Eden) is more like the creation of our resurrected body than it could be compared to the birth of a corrupted fallen body. I think comparing the creation of an immortal body to that of this dying mortal body would be more vastly different than comparing to another immortal body's creation. The reason to make this statement is because it seems that there is much effort to figure out how God could start physical life from just raw elements without having to bring it from somewhere else. I don't think that is necessary. Spirits to put into the physical life yes .... maybe. But physical life does not have to be "born" from parents, similar to the first Mycobacterium Laboratorium cell created in a lab which did not come from parents of it's kind. It was not "birthed" so therefore does not fall into the whole discussion of one species begets another, it was not begotten, it was created. Creation takes away the need for being begotten. The question that you are dancing around but not answering straight away is; Is the resurrected body of the man who died 3000 years ago and all of the molecules that once existed as part of his mortal body scattered and reused by other living organisms, made or birthed? I think you are hinting that you think it is made ... regardless of how, energy etc., the point is that it can be done and without parentage.

I am not saying Adam and Eve were resurrected beings, not at all. I am simply using (and maybe this is too simple) the example used in Sunday School lessons of the hand in the glove idea. The glove being the body, the hand being like the spirit. Before coming to this earth we are just the "hand" and we are given a body (glove). Then at death the body separates from the spirit (like taking off the glove). The spirit is still alive of course, like a hand without a glove. But here is the thing, the original glove is destroyed, it turns to dust, back to raw elements, most of the time. We call the resurrection like putting on the glove again but never to be separated from the hand again. If the "glove" is destroyed after death, it has to be remade to be able to put it on again, doesn't it? To me, that is similar to before we put it on in the first place. The hand before it enters the glove in the first place, at birth, are separate entities. The body or glove the first time around is made by parents when it is a corrupted body. After separation, at death, the original glove is destroyed and returns to dust, and as I mentioned earlier, the elements go back to the earth and are even sometimes used by other animals and even people. It is not the same exact set of elements that are returned to form the second glove (the resurrected body) as those molecules have likely been used by numerous people. So, it can't be the same exact material. If it is not the same exact material, the second glove (the resurrected body) before it is put back on the hand, the resurrected body has to be remade or reformed or resurrected. You posted some fanciful description of that process but are not admitting to the fact that the resurrected body has to be made from raw elements, even if it did use parts of bones left over like the case you presented. Even then, the other parts of that body are not "born" to parents. The new glove somehow appears to be put back on again, and you are not wanting to admit that that body has to be made from scratch, from raw elements without having parents. That body (or glove) is not "born." Or is it? A copy of that body may have been born previously. But that "new glove" specifically was not "born" to parents. The example you posted even suggested the body "magically" reformed without being "born." So, I think you would agree that a body can be made without being born.

Okay, but even then, it really doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion who makes the resurrected body, in the end someone will have to make an adult body that did not have parents. The "clothing" procedure of resurrection will require an adult body be made from raw elements, will it not?

Thanks, What is an unembodied spirit? I've never heard that term before. Isn't that just a spirit? What is the difference between a "disembodied" spirit and an "unembodied" spirit? I don't think you have addressed the issue of how the resurrected body is made. You are using a term "clothed" but ignoring the fact that the body somehow has to be remade or formed somehow. I am not asking how it is done, because I don't think any of us know ... unless you do that is fine. But I think you will agree that that body has to be made somehow without being "born" of parents. It sounds like you agree with me that most bodies from this world will be mostly destroyed and the actual material from those bodies will not necessarily be reserved for that person. So, can't that body be made from scratch, de novo. And if so, that was my original point that the starting bodies from this world do not have to be transplanted from another planet or be born of parents. Why does it "have to be" that Adam and Eve's physical bodies had parents if we believe a resurrected body is created from raw elements without parental birthing? So long as we realize that Adam and Eve are spiritual children of God, what added value does it have to say that our corrupted temporary bodies of this world have Godly parentage? I don't think it adds anything. In fact I think it would be more reasonable to believe that Jesus is the only one who had Godly physical parentage and that is why He could do what He had to do.

I agree with Mysticmorini's response. Your friend will not feel good about having to conserve her intimacy with her family in order to have a relationship with you. What if she were to say something like "I don't want you to wrestle with your dad because there is too much contact there." I would think that you would be happy to part of a family that is so close. On the other hand, if that is a big issue for you then it is good to talk about it now over latter because it may be that you are not a good match.

You are talking about methods after the system is going. Life begets life is what God created here. But the "transplanted" life is more of a discussion of how it got here in the first place. I think I was talking more along the lines of synthetic biology. All of the sequenced DNA to form all the life forms needed to get the ball rolling could be made in a laboratory type setting and then once life is going, yes life begets life and horizontal gene transfer take place to form all the variability that occurs afterward. Scientists have already sequenced new bacteria, Mycoplasma laboratorium, for example. Life could start that way, in other words, God doesn't necessarily have to bring over a zoo of animals and plants from another world to parent the original creation animals here. Nor does He have to leave some organic material laying around from an old world, that should have been turned into its celestial glory anyways. He could simply start with simple molecules and align the molecules in the correct order and sequence the DNA in the right order, as it has always been ordered on every other planet and start the ball rolling.

You have some interesting views on these subjects, I appreciate your responses because it opens my mind to other possibilities and I appreciate it. I am sincerely trying to learn and not trying to argue with you at all (just so you know that). I have always looked at the flood as more of God pruning the garden than making it. That is my simple response to that. There was nothing created from that event, only some things were taken away. I tend to think that all the genetic variable lifeforms that were far removed from the original creation were trimmed back because they became too carnal, not suitable for spiritual cohabitation. .. He had to give us at least a fighting chance to be able to listen to our spirits in this corrupted body. In other words, the body couldn't be too corrupted. Second issue, the body being "raised" is an inclusive term that has to include creating a body de novo. (By the way, I am not used to those terms, ex nihilo - had to look it up). What about the guy who gets eaten by a hippo whose molecules become part of the hippo who will also have to be "raised", then the hippo gets eaten by the lion that will also have to be "raised" and then the lion dies in a field where a tree grows and some other person eats of the tree that now contains the molecules of the original man in the form of a fruit with which now that person dies. The molecules that make up the bodies of those that have passed are reused over and over again. They are not tagged and remain exclusive to the original owner. The form and arrangement might be recorded and then "raised" in that same order. But who will put those molecules back in that same order if you don't think it is God? Will my mother have to go through labor again under the same circumstances to reproduce my body as it was and then I will have to grow it up to the same age in which I died so it can be turned into a celestial, terrestial or telestial body? Of course not, the body has to be made de novo from Earths materials. Somebody has to make it.

(please see my previous post responding to your response) I wanted to add ... the other point I was trying to make is that addiction requires behavior. To become an addiction from simply starting out as a tendency requires repeated behavior. I agree that there is a difference between an addiction and an attraction. I think most everyone in this world does. One doesn't have to be a smoker or an alcoholic etc. In fact, there were many parts of the conference that dealt with addictions of various kinds, whether it is texting, or video game playing or prescription drugs or even lifestyles. I don't have to ask a smoker what addiction is, I can look at myself and look at my drive to food and shopping, which at times in my life have been momentary addictions. We all have to control our passions. But control is not just suppression, it includes driving them in the correct direction. Once one drives themselves down a certain road it is hard to find the way back to the fork in the road. The attraction may be permanent or it may fade to something that is barely noticeable or not an issue for that person. To accept an attraction as part of themselves that is permanent is already a state of mind of unwillingness to try to control that passion. It is part of the body, but not of the spirit. What aspect of their dual being will win out is the test.

What exactly are you saying is it that members don't understand? The gospel of Jesus Christ? The straight and narrow path? The iron rod? Any pathway that veers from the straight and narrow is not a good one. If an adult is attracted to a child, I think you would agree that that is an obvious bad attraction. I don't think you can lump all attractions together. At some point you are going to have to say which attractions are good ones and which ones are not. Always the bottom line, if you are looking at tendencies that the body drives (carnal nature) is to ask yourself if it leads towards the celestial kingdom or away. Is it in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ as given to us by our current prophets? The voices from the spacious building are many and they laugh and mock our straight and narrow pathway. The body can make a person "feel" like they are doing the right thing. But we are to overcome our bodily temptations that lead us away from God and His plan and potential for us. My attraction to my husband goes way beyond bodily desires. It is an attraction based in spiritual connection that has a potential to become like God's "husband and wife" connection. It is based in that potential that our love and attraction is founded. To compare some other type of relationship to that kind of relationship is disgusting to me. Maybe some members don't understand what the whole purpose of this life is, the goal. If one doesn't understand the purpose of this life and the potential that many of us our trying to achieve then all sorts of arguments could be made about how any kind of relationship should and could be made as valuable as another. Do you think God's relationship with His spouse is the same or different than His relationship with anyone else? Why?

This is my understanding ... I think as with all tendencies and predispositions our body gives us, and this may be where the alcohol gene example (i.e the mu receptor modification) is the best thing we can liken it to, it becomes increasingly hard to "turn it off" the more we "turn it on". If I have the gene that predisposes me to have more pleasure from drinking alcohol than anyone else, the last thing I want to do is drink alcohol. Because the more I do it the more difficult it is for my spirit to overcome those urges from the body. I agree that the urge cannot be "turned off" because it is likely genetic in nature, at least as a start but then magnified by behaviors. I don't know if I have the gene for alcoholism because I don't surround myself with alcohol. Likewise, the last people that those that might have tendencies for homosexuality should be around are other people with the same tendencies. For the same reason I don't want a bar on my street corner, I don't think the gay lifestyle should be promoted or invited or accepted as a normal part of society any more than I would want alcoholism to be a normal part of society. That is different from protesting it or calling people names or not showing supporting love. I realize it is in our society as is many detractors from the truth in many areas of our lives. But we are all trying to avoid them. I don't want my cousin, for example, that has that battle to face to have as much access to it anymore than I would a loved one who was an alcoholic live next to a bar. Why would we want to make the struggle more difficult. I believe in hind sight, when we leave this world and we meet our loved ones face to face that struggle with homosexuality, they are going to look at some of us and ask, "Why did you give into it so easily? Why didn't you make it harder for me to not give into my body's desire? Why did you just accept it and not help me through it?" The same questions an alcoholic would ask of their loved ones if they just accepted it and put up no resistance. To show resistance to that tendency is to show love and compassion for their eternal welfare. That is how I see it.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say God could make something out of nothing. I said that He didn't have to transplant life from somewhere else. The materials, the atoms, in their simplest forms have always existed and cannot be made or destroyed. I agree with that. But God could take carbon atoms and string them together with hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen, etc to make the simplest form of life without having to transplant it from somewhere else in the form of a seed or an already put together strand of DNA. Even we have the technology to string together certain nucleic acids together and put them in a sack of lipid layers and form a yeast that had no progenitor, no previously living being of the same kind that that yeast would have as it's "mother or father". I don't think it is far off to say that God could make life de novo, not the materials to make life, but life itself, de novo. And if that is the case, then it doesn't have to be left over from another world or have to be transplanted from another world. He could simply come with the knowledge of how it was done in previous worlds and do it the same way. He probably has the sequence of DNA needed to start those early forms of life memorized. Why would He have to have it pre-made like instant oatmeal in a package, just add water, kind of a thing? I don't understand where that notion comes from. I believe He can string together the simplest forms of matter in the right combination in the right environments to create living creatures where none had existed before. But, yes, the matter was there already. And, I would even say He could do that with a human body, likely not a spirit, but a physical body I think is within God's purview to make from matter alone. ... as He does with our future perfected body after we leave this one behind. If you think the "chicken has to come first", even for our future perfected body, then you must believe that when we receive that body, it is in the form of a baby. Or is it raised somehow to the adult form so that we can jump right into it as an adult when the time comes? I think you would agree, He has the ability to make an adult body without the "chicken".

The faults of our corrupted Telestial body are not God given, they are as a result of the fall. This is what creates the probationary period we find ourselves in, or the test. It is a struggle between carnal and spiritual drives as we are dual beings, physical and spirit. In this life the physical speaks louder than the spirit. It takes effort to listen to the spirit, if not the default is to listen only to the carnal drives and then a person believes that that is who they are, they hear no other voice or feel no other influence. There is a way to reduce the influences of the carnal and so God hasn't left us alone in that struggle. But without the balance of Christ' help the carnal always wins out. The factors you speak of are only "half biological and half environmental" if the spiritual influence is zero. But the spiritual influence can account for way more than half if allowed.

Thanks, yes I agree. That has to be one of the toughest challenges there is. Maybe that is why only a small percentage have it, they are special enough spirits that have the strength to be faced with such challenges. Wherever there is more difficult challenge in life, the greater the reward. I have had that conversation with a friend of mine who has SSA that there should be no reason to even debate the issue of whether they are born with it or not, I would assume that they are "born" with that encoding, just like any challenge that is given to us via our body's predispositions.

I don't think the message is to "go straight" anyways, it is to avoid immoral behaviors and thoughts. Even then, nobody is perfect, so we all fail. That is a failure on my part. Perfection is a process and a goal that requires constant effort. It is a battle that won't be won in this life. So, we all set ourselves up for failure if we take any commandment that way. We are all given imperfect bodies, and those bodies are not who we really are. Our spirits, who in this life are barely revealed, is who we really are. If someone is born with the gene that encodes the 118G variant of the mu receptor in the brain, I am not going to tell them that their spirit is an alcoholic. But people who don't have that gene variant can also become alcoholics and it may be easier for them to overcome it. The people who have the 118G variant of the mu receptor should avoid alcohol, but I wouldn't want to tell them that they should learn how to drink responsibly, that they should somehow learn how to drink but not let it stimulate the reward parts of their brain. Likewise, I think the counsel is to avoid behaviors that are stimulating the wrong reward centers of the brain, even if it feels natural and feels "like this is who I am." No, its the body that they were born with, not the spirit. We all fight that battle between what our body says we are versus the small quieter voice of our spirit. If I listened to my genes, I would be 100+ pounds heavier. So for me, I will agree they are all born that way, with those tendencies but that doesn't change the counsel. The counsel is not to ever have a tendency for same sex attraction (one may not be able to change that about their body), it is to not give into it. Again, nobody is perfect and the church is for non-perfect people.

I am not questioning the woman who created the site. I am wondering what the topic of discussion is with posting that other than it being a news story. What is the doctrinal topic? It could be various things, from freedom of speech, to the definition of marriage, to the definition of families, was the talk at an inopportune time, etc. Or was it just posted to take note of the event, like a news posting? ... just asking for something more specific.

Why is this in the Gospel Discussion section, is there a specific concern or question here?