Seminarysnoozer

Why do you think it had to be "transplanted" and not simply copied? Do you think God is not capable of stringing together molecules to form the basic building blocks of life? I don't understand the need for a "transplanted" scenario.

I would not embrace any concept that has a goal of taking God's hand out of the whole process even if it doesn't say that specifically. The explanation of evolution is an attempt to explain how these things occur "naturally" and on their own. I agree that explaining how something is done and explaining who did it may be two different things with the exception of the fact that evolution could not take place without the hand of God. The premise of the article you posted comes across as suggesting that the power of "evolution" is a power or an entity that exists on it's own and that we need that power to become like God. I believe that notion is false. I believe that God created "evolution" or at least what a lot of people are calling evolution and does not and cannot exist on its own. It is not a tool that God picked up along the way. It is His creation as well as everything we see in this world with our Earthly eyes. We have to be careful about "trying" to explain forces that exist separate from God because to do so is a denial of God's hand in everything. To admit to God's hand in everything good in this world is "Mormon" but to try to embrace a concept that there is a force or power of creation separate from God's power is not "Mormon". To me it is like discussion how paint dries on a canvas and how colors mix together to try to explain how the Mona Lisa was painted. If all one is talking about is the science of how the colors and the materials are mixed together and how they dry etc. that does not explain who painted the picture and who had enough knowledge to put the materials together that way or if they happened to be mixed altogether spontaneously. As much as posters have tried on this thread to say those are two separate ideas, I don't think we can deny that the "theory of Evolution" is an attempt to explain how we became what we are as well as other life on earth. ... in other words, who or what painted the painting. If you want to talk about genetic drift or adaptation etc (i.e - metaphorically, the science behind "how the paint dries" or "mixes"), than call it that, don't call that "evolution."

I would propose that the our earthly, corrupted flesh that we are born with in this life is the thorn, and therefore it is a "thorn in the flesh". I think Paul would be made more aware of this walking around with someone who has a near perfect body, one that can fast for 40 days and can not fall asleep and endure what it did in the garden of Gethsemane. In comparison to that kind of body, we all have "thorny" bodies. There are areas in the brain that are devoted to gluttony, sexual drives, anger, sleep, etc. The natural man is an enemy to God. We all have to learn how to deal with that thorn and put off the natural man and focus on spiritual influences. If we did nothing the natural man would win out. So, the body becomes the thorn that has to constantly, daily, be overcome. It would be nice to walk around with a body that is less driven by Telestial, survival instincts and tendencies.

I am a mother of 4 and have an advanced degree that was obtained after my children were out of elementary school. My husband is a physician and it was important to be at home for my children, especially in their younger years, as my husband even now has limited time with our children. I was able to obtain my advanced degree in between my family responsibilities but it never came first. I think the one thing that made it possible though was the focus was never to make a "career" out of it. I think if you approach it with that in mind you will only face frustration. I think it is good to obtain education when you can so long as it doesn't come before family. And the goal should be, to be a help-meet to your husband. I have found that my advanced degree allows my husband and I to have conversations that we would never otherwise have. Even though I don't understand everything he has trained to do in his career, there are many things that I can at least be a sounding board for. I find it a blessing to be closer to the same "level" with my husband than I would have otherwise been without an education and I think that is a worthy reason to seek an education. I would be prayerful though about making a "career" out of your education goals, that may be the wrong focus when there are family obligations.

Yes. But this is exactly why I bring up this question of what is the true value or significance of "earthly posterity" to the eternities? Abraham didn't have a personal relationship with me in this life. So, if, theoretically, I am a direct descendant of Abraham, what value does that have to Abraham right now any more than if I was not a direct descendant of Abraham but just adopted into the covenant? In other words, does "posterity" really have any more meaning than those people that fall under our influence? Maybe another way to say this is; if a person has 10 children and they we are taught the gospel and became faithful followers of Christ, would that be any different than converting 10 people and they became faithful followers of Christ as far as the word "posterity" goes?

Thanks, yes I am tending to see it more this way than I ever have. Your comment about "the most sacred union is one of choice, not one assigned through genetics" is interesting when you look at promises given to Abraham about his descendants or the fact that Jesus came through David's line. It seems there is something more to that than just priesthood lineage or 'belief' alignment that there is some genetic reason for this. That comment is also interesting in that there are some, even on this forum, that say that our pre-earthly spirits looked like our earthly bodies before we were born, in terms of certain features like hair color, height, shape of the nose etc. If God knew to make our spirits a certain shape and design before this world then He would have to know who would mate with whom. ... (including those caused by rape or slavery etc.) ... then we get into the whole thing about foreknowledge versus free agency etc. The only reason I bring this up is because I don't think there is such importance on earthly genetics as seems to be proclaimed by many in the church. I tend to think that earthly genetics is just for earth in this state, a telestial existence.

Thanks. Just to be clear, I was only talking about earthly posterity. ... Would you still say that without earthly posterity we cannot have "eternal life"? What exactly is the importance given to earthly ancestors and our earthly seed?

I agree with everyone's comments here, that we cannot judge another's action without knowing the desire of their heart and their real knowledge and state of mind. For our own benefit though, prevention is always the best medicine. Having good mental health requires taking care of your body, eating well, sleeping well etc. It also requires filling the mind with positive and uplifting content such as what happens with daily scripture study and prayer. I think there are some with mental illness that find themselves in a deep hole like the examples that you gave or like the example that was given in conference of a woman who was about to take her life after becoming depressed from becoming addicted to prescription drugs. As that example, there often is a pathway of decisions and consequences to those decisions that set up the mental illness. I think there will be judgments based on those decisions, like deciding not to pray every day or not to study the scriptures every day or to slam the door on the missionaries at the door etc. that could have prevented the course that leads to chemical changes in the brain and mental illness. Of course, not all mental illness comes about that way and God is the only judge of how any individual arrives at any specific situation. We do not have the ability to judge any particular individual that way but at the same time realize that we can help prevent mental illness by following commandments and filling the mind with positive and uplifting content.

What is the significance of earthly "posterity" in the afterlife? I can appreciate the significance of being sealed to my family that I shared experiences with here in this life but why would I value a sealed family member's bond removed by several generations more than I would a "sister" or "brother" who belonged to another earthly family? We are all brothers and sisters and we likely spent more time together in the pre-earthly life than we do here. My bonds, I would imagine, run deeper with those relationships than say my great great great grandfather who maybe accepts the gospel in the spirit world and therefore sealed to the family. Or what about a future great great great grandson who falls away from the church but then his grandsons join the church. In other words, I had no direct influence on them being a part of the church, per se. What difference does that make in the next life to have that "posterity" in the next life? Similarly, what significance does it mean to Abraham to have "kings" in his posterity? Does that add to his glory in the next life? Would it make a difference if that "posterity" was not blood related but just someone who was baptized into the church as a result of our efforts to spread the gospel. Is that really what "posterity" means? those that come after us who, as a result of our efforts, have the gospel in their lives? Not necessarily blood relatives. I am curious what everyone things about earthly "posterity" and its significance in the next life. Is there some inherent value to me from a "blood" relative that I may have generations down the road that does some great thing, even though I have had no direct influence in their choices. I know everything I do affects all generations after me but then that would stand to reason that all those souls that came before us would have more valiant links to their name than anyone who was born at a later time.

Addiction to prescription drugs, I thought was an interesting topic.

To me and it sounds like to you too, yes that is the important part, but we weren't necessarily talking about the "important part." The scripture in D&C that I gave says the Earth will be "made" into a different state. Meaning it doesn't already exist. There isn't another layer, waiting for one to be moved to another state. When Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, did he see them as they are or a transformed image of them so they could be in this world? Even if it is a finer material, flesh can't mix with flesh, otherwise why do we need the Holy Ghost? If God can move in and out of our world like the spirit can co-exist with flesh, in other words, one on a spirit level and the other on a physical level than I guess we would have to say that His body is not really flesh. If it is some kind of flesh that can exist in the same space as our flesh, than to me that really isn't "flesh" it is something else. I realize they can't exist in the same area because of it's glorified state that we are not. And if that is true then it is not here that God exists or where the Celestial Kingdom is at the same time a lesser world occupies the same location. Can you point me to where I might read more about these "layers".

This is probably veering into another thread topic ... I've heard this concept before but I don't understand what is left over after the Earth takes on it's paradisical glory. Just like D&C 130:9 says " 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s." So, if this world becomes sanctified and immortal than there would be nothing left of the old world, it would not exist. Just like when we get our new, perfected immortal body the old one, the mortal one does not exist anymore, it goes back to dust. If you are saying that our world was placed on an old one, how is it that the old one still existed? Why wouldn't it be turned back to the dust and basic materials that it came from or that it was formed into a paridisacal glory which would make it unavailable to put anything else on it. If an old world was transformed into a celestial sphere than it couldn't be made into a less than celestial sphere again. So the "old world" you are talking about is either 1) dust - which really wouldn't be called a "world" anymore, So God would be starting from scratch again. or 2) the old world was transformed into it's immortal celestial glory and then wouldn't be a candidate for placing mortals on it. So, if any old world existed, which I believe it did because God's work is without end, then it would not be in any usable form that one would call a "world." ... in my opinion. I think number 2 option above is the really the only possible outcome of God's creation. The only other way around that would be if this world really isn't transformed in the end, that everything is simply moved to a different sphere in which we would call that the celestial sphere. Then it really isn't transformed, it is all just moved to a different venue. There is no doctrine of regression from a glorified celestial state that I know about.

We are on the same page here. I agree with all of that.

Thanks, I agree. These are good points. "Passive" wasn't the right word, I think I was trying to say it opens up the possibility that it was unintentional. In other words if the power to change was in the fruit itself, Adam and Eve could have taken it out of spite or curiosity or simply because they were deceived. It doesn't give any additional support to the idea that they did it intentionally. I agree with it being Adam's decision.

I wasn't comparing the beans to the fruit. I was giving an example of how the scientific method is needed to understand the true cause and effect. I realize you know the scientific method, that's why I am still shocked that you would jump to that conclusion so quickly. The main reason I used that example is because there are many reading this that don't know the scientific method, so they can see that we don't know all the variables. You already said that the rest of the world didn't need to eat the fruit to change and then, like in your last sentence here said that it "was what was found in the fruit that made the change." So for Adam and Eve it had to come from the fruit but for the rest of the world it didn't? So, you already believe that the change can come about from some other mechanism but for Adam and Eve that was the only mechanism possible, why? I think one of the main reasons it was done that way in the garden is because there had to be a way of symbolizing a solid contract, like signing on the bottom line. Adam and Eve had to show physically that they really wanted to go down that road. In a garden setting that sounds like a reasonable way to set up option - if you want to start your probationary period than eat the fruit of that tree, if you don't want to do that yet then eat of every other tree. The reason to speak against it being something intrinsic of the fruit is to strengthen the idea that Adam and Eve made a decision to go down that road and it wasn't just purely temptation because it tasted good or they were curious etc. It could very well be something in the fruit, it's just to me that seems to weaken what really happened in the Garden over the pathway being forced on them versus Adam and Eve being involved with the decision to move ahead. If there was something intrinsic in the fruit that made the change, then it makes Adam and Eve more passive players in the process. That would be like taking some of the sacrament bread and feeding it to my non-member friends to help clean them of their sins. Or if I took some of the bread for later and when I committed the sin I would just eat the bread and clean myself of the sin without having to do anything else. The other reason to say there was nothing intrinsic of the fruit to make those changes is to say that Adam could not run over to the tree of life and eat of that fruit right after eating the fruit from the tree of death and then live forever in that state, discussed in Justice' thread on that topic. Because it really isn't based on what they ate, it is based on their decision to either take door number one or door number two, they simply couldn't take both doors. Anyways, sorry to go on and on, thanks for your conversation.

As a scientist, I can't believe you are saying this. If I have a friend who eats a can of beans and then gets dry mouth, blurry vision, muscle aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies and then I have another friend who also eats some of that can of beans and also gets blurry vision, muscles aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies, I am not going to conclude that the beans had some magical power in and of themselves that would cause this problem. We would say that because we know other people who eat beans, even from cans who don't die. And because of our medical knowledge we would already suspect those beans were contaminated by Clostridium Botulinum. I don't think we can jump to that conclusion that the fruit itself contained the ability to make any changes without being able to examine the fruit and know about that physiology even if the change occurred right after she ate it any more than I would conclude that beans make people go into respiratory failure because I've seen it before. Because that would be a false statement to attribute those symptoms to beans, it should be attributed to the bacteria and the toxin made by the bacteria, in that example.

So, then you are saying that the Earth was not cursed after the transgression, it was already that way? The example you gave, you are describing how celestial beings enter a telestial world. The celestial realm may not need "fire" round about when they exist purely in a celestial realm. I think the description of the guard around the Tree of Life after the fruit from the tree of knowledge was taken may suggest that there was no previous need to have "chariots of fire round about." So, that either means that the garden of Eden was not on the Earth before the fall or that the whole Earth was not mortal before the fall. Sunday school teachings would say that there was no death on the Earth before the fall.

Well, if you want to focus on that instead of the point I was making, then yes I was just teasing you. ... so, "everything that creepeth upon the Earth" doesn't include bugs? Seriously though, look at my whole point. Thanks.

I think the advice given to Martin Harris is good: D&C 19:29 "And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see. 30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. 31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost." and "37 And speak freely to all; yea, preach, exhort, declare the truth, even with a loud voice, with a sound of rejoicing, crying—Hosanna, hosanna, blessed be the name of the Lord God!" In other words, don't focus on what makes us different from others, our "tenets" but speak loudly and with a sound of rejoicing when it comes to declaring the truths of the gospel. "Reviling against revilers" seems to always end up with a discussion of how we are different from others.

That whole section is funny if you read it without reading the description of the purpose of the revelation. My son read the "wasteth flesh and have no need" as a direct commandment to not get "wasted." And then the last verse is funny too; " 28 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, and I come quickly. Even so. Amen. ", knowing this is being read at the Shaker meeting, the "Even so." sounds like "so, there".

He could have put a real cherubim with a flaming sword in front of a figurative tree, sure why not. We have real doors and walls around a figurative veil. God is the master of science but He is also the master of psychology, which some would even say is a science. There are tools also in psychology. After all, He is judging us based on 'psychological' measures, what is in our heart. The trees could still be literal but without intrinsic power. So, the question you posed is not whether they are literal or figurative but do they contain some intrinsic power of themselves that doesn't, at least in part, require God's hand after it was created. As if a bug could climb up on the tree start eating the fruit unintentionally and become immortal without having to live in a Telestial world. Even the liahona, urim and thummim worked via spiritual power, so called 'magic'. This actually carries a greater significance because I think there are some that are out there that believe Adam and Eve were so simple minded that they just looked at the trees as just trees with good fruit on them and didn't really understand the significance of it. ... like when my daughter when she was 4 years old wanted to eat the sacrament because she was hungry not because it carried any particular significance.

Yes, that is the tricky part. We are supposed to study and learn but at the same time realize that it is learning about the process of learning spiritually that we are after not the content of the study necessarily. Lets just take a field of study, Linguistics. Do you think before this life began you knew more or less about linguistics than you do in this life or can hope to attain in this life? Or how about physics, do you think you knew more or less before this world began, in the pre-existence than you ever hope to understand about physics in this world. I think the veil we now have serves a number of reasons, not only to shroud our life with our Heavenly Father but also so we don't depend too much on our own knowledge. I think once we return we will be surprised how little we had to work with in this life, in terms of secular knowledge and that, like you mentioned, helps us depend on the spiritual side more. I have many close family members who have pulled away from the church for this very reason. They have several letters behind their name, because study has become their main focus in life. Most of them are in the sciences and its difficult to pull away from the "prove it" mentality instead of listening to the promptings of the spirit. Not all of them have pulled away from the church and like yourself can use knowledge wisely. I think being learned is right up there with being rich in terms of difficulty in entering God's kingdom. I am not saying learning should be avoided, I am just giving an explanation for why I think some people don't do the little things in church, in response to the OP.

Point taken. But your response gets at exactly what I am saying, I think we sometimes over analyze the specifics and miss the greater message. Fortunately, you could see that.

I don't think the trees have to 'contain' any properties at all any more than the waters of baptism have some special cleansing power in and of themselves. It's not like I can hang around after a baptism and scoop up the water and clean my sins away by pouring the water on my body. Or are there special properties in a piece of bread that has been blessed by the sacrament that if we analyzed it's chemical properties we would find something different about it from any other piece of bread? I suspect those trees are the same, they are simply symbolic and only contain powers in as much as God takes action when they are eaten under the right circumstances. God transformed the immortal body into a mortal one, right? ... not a tree or a fruit.

I think there are people in the church who think part of the purpose of this life is to become a free thinking, free acting individual. They base that on instruction to learn from every good book, and any bit of knowledge we gain from this life will carry through to the next, ideas. I think that there are people who try to convince themselves that they have to understand the reason behind a commandment and the intrinsic benefits of it before they will obey it. When it might just simply be a test of obedience. I think people fall into that trap because they believe one of the goals of this life is to comprehend God's purpose over being meek, submissive and obedient. So, they try to reason through the relative value of certain commandments. 'If I drink a little bit of caffeine, that isn't as bad for my body as a lot of caffeine', as an example. We don't have to understand the 'why is this good for me' aspect of a commandment to obey it. Relying on one's own knowledge make that person prideful and makes it difficult to pay attention to spiritual promptings over the logic of their own thought. People justify that kind of thought process when they believe that our secular knowledge gained here is somehow comparable to what we learned before this life. The knowledge that we are supposed to gain is not secular but how to distinguish right from wrong spiritually and how to rely on the spirit for guidance. Those people tend to get hung up on little things because they can't figure out the intrinsic value of that particular commandment instead of simply obeying it. It is good to understand and gain knowledge but not at the price of loosing submissiveness and having an eye single to the glory of God.