Seminarysnoozer

I am not sure how you could separate the two things, the power of His priesthood and the power of His being, aren't they the same thing? The power of resurrection is through having the keys of the power of resurrection which is done through priesthood power as all actions of God that bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Jesus, of course, acting in God's name, He didn't do it for Himself or of Himself. Russell M. Nelson said; "This great priesthood power of resurrection is vested in the Lord of this world. He taught that “all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18)." President Kimball said; "President Brigham Young, the second president of this dispensation, said: “It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in those ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would like to ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of resurrection.” (Journal of Discourses, 15:137.) Do we have the keys of resurrection? Could you return to the earth as ones who would never again die—your own parents, your grandparents, your ancestors? I buried my mother when I was eleven, my father when I was in my early twenties. I have missed my parents much. If I had the power of resurrection as did the Savior of the world, I would have been tempted to try to have kept them longer. I have been called to speak in numerous funerals for people whom I have known, people whom I have loved, and people whom I have saved and held on to in a limited way. We do not know of anyone who can resurrect the dead as did Jesus the Christ when he came back to mortality. “[The keys] will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again. … They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism then receive the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here [on the earth], and there are many more.” (JD, 15:137.) "

Thanks for your response. I would appreciate some clearing up of what you said. It seems the first paragraph you are saying Jesus was not subject to the fall because He was begotten and the second paragraph He was not subject to the fall because He did not sin. Are you trying to say that because He was begotten He did not sin? That sounds like you are explaining how Jesus doesn't fall into any 'original sin' category. Is that what you are saying?

So, then what do you think is the significance of Him having to be a Begotten Son in the flesh?

That is exactly what raises the question of why He had to be Begotten. What added significance does that have beyond His spiritual authority and power that added to His role here?

One other thing to consider is that "knowledge of good and evil" meaning accountability, guilt and it's associated agency may be mutually exclusive from immortality. Even after this life all sins have to be accounted for in the spirit world before we become immortal beings. That doesn't mean we will forget what we learned but that there is no more having to pay for sins or associated accountability with immortality. So, another way to put the two options you have above are, 1. Do I want to coast the rest of my existence without the opportunity to grow or 2. Do I want to at least have a chance to improve myself? It's kind of like deciding to go on a mission or not; 1. Do I limit my growth and get started right away on my life or 2. Do I sacrifice and limit my agency for 2 years so later I can grow even more?

"Plain" is a good description.

Why did Jesus have to be a "Begotten Son in the flesh"? Being His spiritual Firstborn Son is not enough? The "Sunday school" answer is something along the lines of Him being the only perfect, sinless man on earth or that He is the Firstborn. A deeper response might be that being a Begotten son would give him the ability to lay down His perfect life to pay for our sins and to overcome death or to even perform the miracles He did in this world. And another response would be to simply reveal God's nature. One could also say, the Savior had to be Begotten because it was prophesied that way and one could provide numerous scriptures to that regard but that doesn't explain 'why'. (*I am also not discussing how it was done, that would be for a different thread. And I am assuming the traditional LDS belief that Jesus is the literal Only Begotten in the flesh.) There are a couple questions this brings up, if that is what we believe. What is it about being the literal half-offspring of God in the flesh that allows Him to have otherwise lived an immortal life if He didn't sacrifice it for us? Do we not have examples of others who are walking the Earth in bodies that will not die but later given up and become resurrected? And why does this have to be done by being the literal offspring of God in the flesh? Why could it not be that Christ simply be given a perfect body to sacrifice later, why does it have to be an Only Begotten (that is really just a half begotten) body? If we say there is added value to being the literal Begotten Son of God in the flesh than it speaks to the idea that our greatness here on Earth is at least partly determined by the type of body we have. And not only having a certain type of body but one made up of a certain lineage. To make that body "perfect" does it have to be Begotten? If the answer is 'yes' than that would imply our perfected bodies after this life will all have to be Begotten of the Father. If the answer is 'no' then what really is the value of Jesus being literally Begotten of the Father in this life? The other category of questions comes from the idea that Jesus' body had to be Begotten to be able to overcome death. If we say that is the case then we are also saying that that is where the power to overcome death comes from, the body, at least in part. I've always considered Christ's ability to overcome death a function of his Priesthood power. If it was the Priesthood power alone than would it really matter what body Christ was born into, other than it being perfect? And if a perfect, flawless body was needed to overcome death, He would have to change that body to a mortal one to allow for death. If it was changed, or given up to become mortal at the cross or in the garden, then wouldn't He have also lost the ability to overcome death if it was from that perfect body? Was Jesus healing power and miracles a function of the Priesthood power alone or from the Godly body He had while on the Earth? Even just believing that a perfect, flawless body alone was needed for the sacrifice of the savior, why did that sacrificial body have to given by being "Begotten"? If one says, that is the only way to make a flawless, perfect body, then we would have to say that Adam and Eve's bodies were made the same way, which we know is not true because Jesus is the only Begotten. So we know there are other ways of making a perfect, flawless body. So, what is the significance, why did it have to be that Jesus is the literal Only Begotten Son in the flesh?

I think the actual manifestations of Satan are as rare as the manifestations of God. But people use the phrase "caused by Satan" to include those things that lead towards Satan and his will along with actual acts of the being Satan. The majority of those things that people claim are "caused by Satan" are just things that lead towards the carnal desires of this world and evil traits making people more similar to Satan. The same can be said about God's hand in all things, we use that often to mean things that lead us to our Heavenly Father and traits that make us more similar to Him and not that God personally acted as He did with Joseph Smith's vision. I see "manifestations of Satan" all the time, meaning evil and carnal draws. Satan himself doesn't scare me as much as the temptations that are associated with him. Jesus wasn't scared of him. He has no power over us unless we yield to those temptations. If I lived this whole life not exposed to one "manifestation of Satan" it would be a waste of time because there would be no test to prove my worthiness. So, having "manifestations of Satan" isn't necessarily a bad thing. It wasn't bad for Jesus. It wasn't bad for Joseph.

I agree with most of what you are saying here but I would have you focus on something that caught my attention, your statement; "The best guess I have is that it was somewhat like a small child who is innocent, very possibly much like the state of mind he was in while in the pre-mortal existence." I think one thing that throws everyone off is the "like a small child" analogy because that makes everyone think about not having knowledge when in reality all metaphors as to "being like a child" are only referring to the level of innocence, meaning not guilty or in other words clean like a child. In some ways, I think that is a bad metaphor. Think of a male OB-Gyn doctor. He may have the top 1% knowledge of child birth and all its complications out of everyone in the world but he will never know what it is like to actually give birth. He is innocent as to that knowledge. The innocence of "being like a child" is related to the feeling of guilt and accountability, I think that is all. If you are saying it is like the state of mind when we were in the pre-existence than to me that is very knowledgeable. Presumably, there was a great war in heaven that we all took sides and fought for that side, with words and knowledge. I think it would have been a pretty short war if we had no idea what we were talking about. Like you are suggesting, if the 1/3 of heaven can make a decision that results in permanent separation than that is not as heavy as Adam making a decision with similar knowledge that only results in temporary separation. I have had a hard time arguing this point but I think the plan of salvation is a lot more glorious and noble if Adam and Eve had a pretty good knowledge of what they were doing as opposed to doing it on accident or purely out of enticement when they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Because there is a difference between choices that would put an end to a persons eternal progression versus choices that allow for the refiner's fire of this life to, in the end, make us stronger people. And sometimes only God can see that bigger picture. It's like asking why would you let your 16 year old daughter take the car out at 2 pm but not at 10 pm. The 16 year old may ask, "You let me drive at 2 pm, so tell me why you are not letting me drive at 10 pm? That is hypocritical, you are taking away my freedom." I think if the core of one's being is to go against God's plan from the beginning then there is no benefit in coming to this world to receive a body and to be tested. The fall was a downward and forward step. There are some steps that are simply downward but not forward.

I think this is right. We are dual beings, the carnal being is at odds with our spiritual being. And the carnal, or natural man manifests itself more if we do nothing. The default state of our life is Satanic unless we put an effort into listening to our spiritual side which usually takes constant effort.

I don't know why I am having a hard time expressing this to you, sorry. I'll try one more time. ... I think you are using reverse logic to make that claim. Do teenagers drive cars? yes. Therefore every car is driven by teenagers. This is the kind of logic you are using. Does a spirit animate a body? yes. Therefore every body is animated by a spirit. I can agree with you that a spirit can animate a body without having to claim that every body is animated by a spirit. It probably does rest on our differing views of what "animate" means, but you won't provide me your definition of "animate" so it does make it hard to discuss anything more about it. Does your definition of "animate" include someone in a manic phase who jumps the wall of temple square to "talk to Jesus"? Is it the spirit animating that body or is the body alone acting? Or when my grandma who has Alzheimers, bless her soul, gets up in testimony meeting and claims that "Joseph Smith is a sexy man" is that the spirit animating the body or the body animating itself and the spirit has lost control? If you would say it is not the spirit in those situations then you would say it is possible for the body to be animated without the input from the spirit. ... And yet I could still claim that a spirit animates a body and that is a fundamental aspect of "life". I don't think my grandmother will have many of the things she does in her current state considered part of her earthly "life" as she has lost control of her body in many respects. But if you say it must needs be that all animations of the body are driven by the spirit then I suppose she will be judged for everything she does and says even in her current state. ... these are just things to consider, I don't think you have to be closed minded about it or say that my statement was not in hopes of a serious discussion.

Your original statement is that it is the spirit/soul that animates the body and therefore the clone body would have to have a spirit. (paraphrased) Then I responded with an example of how a body can be animated without a spirit (presumably) as a serious discussion with which you put me on the defense by saying that my response was not serious. If you want to dismiss what I am saying as irrelevant that is your prerogative but you do not have to judge something that I ponder and wonder about and what I think the original post was getting at as being not serious just because you don't take it seriously. I think we both agree that the spirit animates the body. And, yes I have an understanding of what that means. I think where you are making an extrapolation from that statement is that the body always has to be animated by a spirit. If you are trying to say that the body always without exception has to be animated by a spirit then the examples I gave do have an impact on your original statement. You can go ahead and choose to ignore my points and call them not serious but then I am only to assume that you believe every action of the body is driven by the spirit. If you want to keep saying I have no clue as to what "animate" means then please be bold enough to give me your definition of "animate". I think you are not willing to consider that I am talking about examples in which the body is animated without the input from the spirit and so yes that is true, I am not talking about "how the spirit animates the body" but you are wrong in saying that it is not a serious discussion or that it does not have an impact on your original statement. ... in my opinion. So, how do you define "animate"? and do you think every action of the body is "animated"?

Justice, I am coming into this discussion late so I apologize if I am off the mark with my comments or saying something that has already been said. I see this issue the same way that I see someone who is not worthy to enter the temple not getting a temple recommend. If someone who was not worthy to get a temple recommend actually got into the temple, which I am sure has happened, it would not have the intended effect on that person as it would with someone who was worthy to be there. The difference between that and the tree of life is that God would not allow for Celestial tools be defiled or misused in whatever method He uses. I think "guard" is metaphoric, and "prevent" could be used the same as saying "deny" or "not allow" just like we would want to "prevent" someone going to the temple who is not worthy by have a recommend system in the first place. I think this discussion just points out that the limitations caused by having agency and not choosing the right are not just natural occurring consequences but also consequences delivered by God. If I speed down the highway I could kill myself or kill someone else by my agency to obey the speed limit or not but also I could get a ticket. The ticket is not a natural consequence of the agency to speed. It is given by someone not involved in my agency, a "guard" so to speak. In terms of worthiness, holiness, purity and Celestial states, God has to keep it that way by preventing Celestial mechanisms misuse. People can still try or even have the idea come to mind that they could misuse it, just like Satan thought he could take the firstborn role. He had the agency to think that and even fight for it, but God would not let that happen. We are also judged by the desires of our heart not just action. So, I think agency can be maintained when there is an opportunity to have bad desires even though we could have never done that thing in the first place. So, sorry, long answer, but God may have had purpose to show Adam his fallen state and leave the tree there but metaphorically "guarded" as a physical representation of Adam's unworthiness to partake of Celestial things. God would not permit it because the things that Alma describes would have happened if He permitted it. Aren't there descriptions of what would happen if an unclean person entered God's presence too? Even though that would never happen because God would not permit it.

Perhaps you don't realize that the body is animated by the spirit and that makes up the "soul" of man but that doesn't necessarily mean the body cannot be animated on its own. Let me give you a few scenarios that you can tell me if the spirit is "animating" the body in those situations. When a person is drunk? or under the influence of drugs? When a person sleep walks? a good example being REM sleep behavior disorder (read about it if you don't know what that is - where people act out their dreams punching and kicking, even injuring their spouse, but they are mild mannered people that would never do such a thing when they are awake)? Or when a person has a seizure? Or myoclonus? Or Parkinson's? Or Tourette's Syndrome? Or obsessive compulsive disorder where they have to touch something over and over again? Or a stutter? Or a nervous tic that only comes out in front of large groups? Or a cough? Or a gag? Or a passing out when they see blood? Or when a person has dementia and acts and says something odd? etc. etc. Those actions were generated by the spirit? You really believe that? I don't think the spirit drives all behaviors and movements and "animations". Yes, I believe the spirit animates the body but that does not necessarily mean the reverse is true that the body has to be animated by the spirit. David O' Mckay, if you look at it carefully is not saying that the body has to be animated by the spirit. The teaching here is that the spirit existed before the body and after the body returns to dust. If you are reading more into it than that, then that is your own interpretation.

In other words, if one is a member of the church, it is all commandment under the covenant of baptism.

My response is serious. You claimed the body is animated by a spirit or soul. So, I gave you an instance where it seems that that is not the case. How would you explain that? Did the spirit also get cut in half? part of it went with the head and part with the body to keep animating the body? Or what about a bag of red blood cells? Did part of the spirit go with the cells or are they spiritless and yet alive? Or a transplanted heart that is clearly animated after taken from the donor and sitting in the cooler all by itself? Is the spirit animating that heart? What spirit? I think these are very serious questions.

Yes, we know the anatomy of that now. There are motor circuits in the spinal cord that allow for complex rhythmic movements such as running and flying etc that when let loose by lack of upper motor inhibition cause movements. They are all reflexive and are not purposeful of course. But my point was to say that there can be animation without the spirit. And the body parts are still "alive" for a short period of time without the spirit attached.

That isn't entirely true. What about a headless chicken's body running or trying to fly for several minutes after the head is removed? (sorry, thats morbid)

We don't know the answer to the first question, as already stated. I raised a similar question in a previous thread in which we talked about the definition of "soul." A broader question associated with that issue is, "Does any live tissue (separated from the body but kept alive) have an attached spirit?" What about a bag of red blood cells? or tissue formed from stem cells, like liver tissue or skin cells? Even tissue formed from stem cells of an individual who has passed away? My personal thought (not found in the gospel teachings) is the possibility that all living organisms before Adam and Eve did not have individual spirits and therefore there was no death before Adam and Eve as there could be no separation of spirit from body which is death. So, another associated question is "can a body exist alive without a spirit?" Even Adams body was created before the breath of life. These are interesting topics.

My point though is there is a difference between observation versus the ability to manipulate events that are considered passed. "To bring to pass" is God's term. No matter how He ultimately perceives it and is able to see all time, He still recognizes "bringing things to pass." If you think He is saying something there differently than what most people would take from that saying, please share. What does it mean to God, "to bring to pass"? To me, it requires a passing of time so that nobody can go back and change what has happened. And it means that there is a value to making something happen that wasn't there before it happened. If God exists in all time, all the time, then there is no "bringing to pass" of anything and there is no value to having brought something to pass. We know that God's very glory is dependent on bringing things to pass. And His glory expands by doing so. If He was in all time, then His glory would not change by bringing anything to pass. So, what do you think it means to God, "to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man"? There may be various ways to observe time, to perceive it. I don't think that is the point I am making other than whatever the way it has to include a basic rule that one cannot go back in time to change the events that occured.

The question for you then is if one believes God told Nephi to take his head while he was sleeping, is it still murder? Even then, the commandments were given to men. God can take life as freely as He gives it. That is not contradictory to His commandment for us.

I didn't see the question as to how we view time rather whether time could be reversed or done over. Is what is passed, passed? Or when we say "to bring to pass" that is something that is potentially reversible? Is exaltation permanent then? I perceive time as cyclical in the sense that I still have a round clock and the hands go around back to the same spot every 12 hours. How I perceive the passage of time is not the question. Don't get too side tracked with your discussion, although I welcome your explanation. Thanks.

I think it would be easy to wait a year. I think this sounds like a great motivating challenge to your family. I would probably respond with something like. "that is a great idea, we will all do this together at the end of the year." ... it's a two for one. I might also through in there, 'if you don't prepare by the end of the year I am planning on going ahead with it', just so they know you are serious about it.

I think as Galpelpa stated, you have to first have a testimony that God is our "Heavenly Father." I think some of the doubt comes from not really seeing God as our Father. Just like you view your earthly parents, you should see God as our spiritual parents and then you can see our divine potential and our real desire to be like Him. "Heavenly Father" is not just a title, He really is our Father.