Seminarysnoozer

The child of Hagar and Abraham, Ishmael wasn't good enough for the Lord, which had to be a race thing. Wasn't it? It couldn't have just been a cultural thing as Hagar was good enough to become Abraham's wife, meaning she was likely of the same religion and belief. I've always wondered if that was a race thing.

I think one of the hardest concepts for people to understand is that we are duel beings, both spirit and body. In this life the body is mostly in control and that is part of the test. The way one feels and the tendencies we all have are part of this test we are in, to see if we will let the spirit win out. The default though, is that the body will win. If we do nothing the bodies tendencies will win out in everyone. And, we can only overcome the body's tendencies with Christ's help. Nobody can do it on their own. The natural man is an enemy to God for everybody, no matter what specific challenge you have been given in this life. The mistake I think a lot of people make about it is that, who you are here is such a tiny, obliterated and altered fraction of who you really are in the pre-existence. Ask yourself, what percentage of what you knew in the pre-existence did you take with you here? Was it 50%, was it 10%, was it .000001%? My feeling is it is closer to the later. Just like the story of the 10 talents, we are given stewardships in this life to test our responsibility (i.e.- we didn't have them before). If we do well with what we are given here then we will have multiples of what we had and be added to. What one is attracted to here may or may not have anything to do with what we were attracted to before? My husband is attracted to basketball, but I doubt basketball was part of his pre-earthly existence as it is a man-made sport. I think it is important to remember that we are duel beings here and for the most part the body is what we feel and think with, in short small glimpses we get to feel and think from our real self, the spirit.

I appreciate your response. I see the covenant mostly in terms of symbolism like you describe. But that is where I have a hard time understanding the significance of it being through a certain line. Ishmael is described as the seed of Abraham in some respects but is not the line through which the priesthood is carried. So why is there a genetic requirement? I guess this falls into the category of Priesthood and genetics that has been discussed many times but I was looking at it more from the "father of many nations" here on earth. So maybe that is referring to the father of many priesthood holding nations? Was the only thing holding Ishmael back genetics? If they knew that ahead of time, why did Sarah offer Hagar as a solution then, she couldn't see what her genetics were?

Our language is not perfect and our use of words also changes. I think there are several examples in the Book of Mormon that say something to the effect of "in other words...". If you've ever had to translate something from one language to another this is apparent. For example, when, in English one says, "That doesn't work." to translate into Spanish you wouldn't say "work" you would use the word for "function." And in portuguese you would use the word "give" for work - "That doesn't 'give', in other words, it doesn't work. I think there are clarifications and further insight given to the meaning of revelation all the time because it likely doesn't come in the form of 'english' but mostly in the form of spirit to spirit communication that that individual later has to translate into imperfect English (or whatever earthly language).

Could you explain to me what you know about the significance of an earthly dynasty is in heaven, and what is meant by "dynasty." thanks

I think one of the best ways to grow one's testimony is to teach. If you can find some way to share the gospel in a friendly atmosphere, oftentimes the one giving the lesson learns more than those being taught. This is the value of Family Home Evening or teaching in the primary or even doing your visiting teaching lessons. A testimony grows faster by sharing it more than reading more books, in my opinion.

Do you think there will be a difference between the people that you bring into the fold through missionary work etc versus those that are brought into the fold by being your son's son's son (i.e. posterity)? In other words, it seems like there is a value placed on posterity that is different than simply converting someone and 'adopting' them into the fold and it seems most obvious with the story of Abraham.

Your response makes me wonder even more why it was important to Abraham (and God for that matter) to have a specific genetic line to create that 'dynasty' as you put it. If Joseph Smith did this with people he wasn't even related to (from a genetic standpoint) why was it so important for Abraham? They couldn't find some other cousin of Rebecca's to marry and pass on the keys and "adopt" into the 'dynsasty.' Or was Isaac the only non-egyptus descendant in the whole world. For some reason, it was almost critical that the son be a genetic offspring of Abraham and Sarah that goes a little unspoken in the scriptures. (at least to my reading)

... sorry to go on about it, but I had another thought to maybe clarify where I am coming from. I think having 'eternal families' is like the ability of remembering all of your friends from elementary school. When I look back to elementary school, I had a lot of good friends that would come over to my house and we would play for hours and some of them even went on to go to Junior High and High School with me. But, those that didn't go on to High School with me, I didn't really maintain any relationship with them and for the most part have forgotten about them. In fact, now I would say that I don't have any relationship with them even though I had a good relationship with them before. 'Families are Forever' to me is a wonderful blessing in which it is possible to continue those relationships established here and be surrounded by people that you had growing experiences with here, kind of like being around all of your elementary school friends while in High School or college etc. And those that aren't sealed to you will be like the guy you sat next to in second grade that you can't remember his name. Who is your father and mother in this life, I think, will have the same significance as who was class president in fourth grade, unless that person was you or someone you continue to have a relationship with now, it probably is long forgotten.

I guess the reason why I question this is because I look at this life as a probationary period where a veil has been placed before us and where we have left the presence of God. We are placed in artificial scenarios to test us and allow us to have experiences that we need for the eternities. It's like when you take the SAT and there is a question about "if Bob travels 30 miles down the C train at 60 miles an hour, how long will it take to get to the station?" That doesn't mean in the real world (i.e - in the next life) you are going to run into a guy named Bob riding on a "C train". Our situations we find ourselves in are related to the assignments and purposes for this world which are to prove our worthiness in the next. We are given talents here (by the way, that we may not have had in the previous life) so that we can see if we will multiply them and be good servants. For example, Moses not being a good public speaker, in my opinion, was just a part of his earthly situation and test. Likewise, our family situation is just part of this test and opportunity to perform our individual assignments and tests. Just like any test, you can't test for all things, you have to given just a sampling of various questions that represents the full material, so in other words it is select, not complete. This is just a very very short period of time for us. I can't see how all the eternities are based on the genetic hierarchy of this world. And if it is, why? Why base the eternities on a short select artificially altered existence from our true selves? We are duel beings, spirit and mortal body. How much of you right now is your body versus the spirit? My guess is that our actions and our personalities and our overall 'test situation' is mostly our body and not our spiritual self ... that is the power of the veil. Spiritually, my mother is my sister as well as my great great great grandmother, and so is Emma Smith. In fact Emma Smith is just as much my sister as my mother, why would my relationship in the next life be any different with Emma Smith compared to my earthly mother. I suppose it would be if one thinks this life is more than a quick passing or a test.

So let me understand what you are saying. When it comes to family in the next life, it is a "ruling" over your posterity situation? That seems really strange to me. I can understand that families are forever, or can be forever, meaning we will continue to have relationships with those individuals but I don't see how there would be a need to have a great great great grandmother 'ruling' over me, I would rather just have her as a friend. And I have heard (probably just something that gets passed around a bit) that our chronological age and line-up here may have nothing to do with our chronological line-up in heaven. One example of course is our eldest brother came in the meridian of time. It is hard for me to comprehend too how those that are not fortunate to have children in this life will have no 'posterity' here but I don't think that will affect any of what they are given in terms of responsibilities and kingdoms in the life to come. This would also apply to all those that die before the age of 8 etc. And again, all those that come at the '11:59' hour of earths existence will have very little earthly posterity and yet are described as being the most valiant. I can't wrap my head around the idea that one's earthly posterity relates to 'posterity' in heaven.

... The only way that I can put this together in my mind is that there was no other worthy male anywhere in the world at that time to hold the priesthood and to partake of temple marriage. And, so, he had to produce one of a specific lineage to be worthy of the priesthood to go on to temple marriage. But, then this reinforces that idea about lineage and priesthood, which is always hard to comprehend.

I appreciate your response. You sound quite knowledgeable about these things. These are kind of new subjects for me in Sunday School and I don't think I ever thought about them this much even though I've read through it several times. So, are you saying most of the promises of the covenant were of spiritual nature and not so earthly as it sounds? And, I am still not sure of the significance of lineage in LDS doctrine. I understand the importance of genealogy work etc. but why is it important who your father's father's father .... is? I guess what I am asking is why is there a covenant in the first place that relates to having earthly children when a lot of us our adopted into the tribe anyways? What is the value of having Abraham have literal offspring from a doctrinal view for God? I know what the value of having children is, I have 4. But I am trying to understand God's desire for Abraham that he had a son through specific genetic lines - Abraham and Sarah. Other than just being part of the promise why did it have to be 'blood', why not say "you will be the spiritual King and ruler over nations" and not make it such a big deal that it had to be from a specific lineage or blood line? And, I think there can be "great and noble ones" that rule in God's presence that aren't necessarily "fathers of nations" here on this earth. I think if Abraham just thought God was talking about being a father of nations in heaven and not necessarily here on earth that he wouldn't have really cared if he had another son. But, he obviously put a lot of value into having a literal son with Sarah and not just being content with being the father of nations in the eternities.

I can understand the temporal benefits of having many children and in particular during biblical times but why is being the "father of many nations" and having everlasting claim to the land in Canaan such an important thing to Abraham from a spiritual perspective? I am having a hard time understanding why it is important to have claim to land after we pass from this life. And for that matter, how important is it to have literal posterity in this life? It seems that Abraham made a big deal over genetics. Most of us are adopted into the tribe of Israel and even if we aren't why does that matter that we have some genetic link to Abraham or not? So, if it doesn't matter that we are adopted and don't have to have a blood link to Abraham, why was it so important to him that he had an actual blood linked son to become the father of many nations? Why couldn't have been an adopted son as the father of many nations? I am trying to comprehend the importance of genetics. It seems that genetics are important in other passages of the Bible too, like the fact that Seth carried the image of Adam, whose line is where Jesus eventually comes from. I think it is most obvious though in the story of Abraham and Isaac, this implied importance to passing on genes in this world. I know of the importance to progress to the point of eventually being able to participate in the procreation of spirits and to be given more responsibility in the life to come but I thought it was almost the opposite here, to not seek after possessions, land, power etc.. Of course, what we are given here we should use wisely and be a good servant, multiply our talents and possessions but why would it be important to be the "father of many nations" or the father of kings or be promised land of this temporal world?

The story of Isaac and Rebecca is an example of where it was important to find someone of the same cultural background. But I take from that story the most important thing is to find someone who is worthy of all the things that you are trying to accomplish in your life. In other words, someone who is temple worthy and has a testimony of the gospel, regardless of race or culture.

In my opinion, this is not a 'great' discussion. I think it is much easier to argue against something we know very little about it than try to argue in favor of a possible unknown method. All one can gather from that discussion is that it is confusing and we are unsure about it. I, personally, think that statements like God is eternal and 'I am' are referring more to the eternal nature of things that are spiritual and not necessarily specific individuals. They way things are done in the spirit world remain the same and will always be done that way because there is no other way, just like having a Christ is the only way and that is what makes him the great 'I am." Just like I can say I only have one Bishop ... it may not be the same individual, but I have only one and the organization stays the same. And after my Bishop moves on, I still call him Bishop. (I realize that's not the best example, but trying to make a point that the great 'I am' might be referring more to the title than the individual.) Just a thought.

I look at missions as an accelerant. Whatever direction a person is heading it will get them there a lot faster than if they didn't serve the mission. This is why there are various outcomes. I served a mission when I was 22, I thought I was fully mature but was surprised at how much growth took place over 18 months. I know I couldn't have made that much improvement in certain aspects of my development without being placed in that position. I think young non-RM need to be looked at with some question as to their maturity more than I would look at a potential husband of the same age that has served a mission. Of course, every one is different and there are many other ways to mature quickly but in general it allows a young man to mature faster than he would otherwise (and young women for that matter) :)

Temptations have their effect through our bodies, as our bodies are part of this world and Satan has dominion over things of this world. The effect Satan has is only dependent on how much one listens to the influence of the body over the spirit regardless of age. I think eventually the body gains more and more influence with age unless we actively counteract that through living the gospel. So, I think the spirit is stronger than the body influences when we are young but the scales start to tip in the other direction with age.

Thanks, the other thing I find hard to understand and believe is the fate of those spirits that were cast out if one believes that those spirits existed before God came along. In other words, you would have to ask yourself if the spirits that were cast out are better off or worse off now if one believes they existed as a 'consciousness' before receiving a spirit body. If God doesn't have power to control the mix of 'intelligence' to form spirits that would most likely keep their first estate then I can see how a third of them would be lost. If God does have control in "picking" from the intelligences that existed before the plan started, then why pick those that would choose Lucifer's plan? or even pick the spirit that would become Lucifer? My feeling is that the pre-spirit material 'intelligence' has uniformity and therefore no way to tell what the 'consciousness' would look like or be like until it is actually formed. At least, that makes me feel better about knowing we all had the same chance to keep our first estate, that there was no pre-condemnation of those spirits before they were formed. If one states that the 'intelligence' was chosen to make Jehovah then one would also have to say that the 'intelligence' to form Lucifer and all those that followed him would have be chosen for that purpose too ... and I don't think that is how it happened. The other factor that makes it hard to understand that we were just all hanging out and God came around and said I have a plan ... 'let me give you a spirit body and make this happen' is that what would give God power to condemn all those that didn't keep their first estate? If one believes the spirit body is just another covering like our physical body, I can't see how God would have that much authority to condemn that component that He, in that theoretical situation, had no real authority over. One would have to say that He had authority because He was the smartest and the most progressed, not because He is our Father. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that God is God because He was the smartest, the most powerful and the most progressed. I think God is God because He is the beginning, for us.

Your words are very emotional and it is easy to agree with but I think that a lot of people over interpret the words of Joseph Smith in this regard. And, I realize there are many scholars in the church that run with this concept and it starts to become part of mainstream 'mormonology' as you put it but really has not been revealed to us yet. There are scholars like Daniel Ludlow who expound on this topic and my friends that have attended BYU have discussed this topic with me many times. I think its important though to not take Joseph Smith's words out of context. In the King Follett Sermon, where I think most of this comes from (not sure), he was speaking in relation to the funeral of Elder Follett. Even Joseph F. Smith had some discomfort with the concepts written in short hand from the talk and so they were kept out of publication for a while. I think his main point (as he even says, I have to touch on this briefly) is that there is no annihilation of spirits. That spirits continues after death. And the proof that it does is that it is co-eternal with God meaning it existed in spiritual form before this world began. He even states the elements are co-eternal, that of course does not mean the elements have a conscious. I think Joseph was trying to assure all those in attendance that King Follett's spirit will live on, he was trying to comfort them. There are also statements that the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with Heavenly Father and Jesus making them one eternal God. But ask yourself if you think the Holy Ghost is one individual, eternally in that position. If you make an exception to the use of the word 'co-eternal' for that case then you have to really wonder about it's use everywhere else. I think one thing is more certain, that spiritual material is co-eternal with God and cannot have an end because it did not have a beginning. We can still say that individuals, the sons and daughters of God, had a beginning without contradicting the first statement because spiritual matter is not created or destroyed just like the matter that makes up your physical body is not created or destroyed. I do not believe in the annihilation of souls but still believe in the birth of souls. If one does not believe in the birth of souls, I feel sorry for all those 'intelligences' that are simply waiting around for someone to put them into a spiritual body ... or do you believe you will not have the opportunity to have spiritual children at some point? One last statement, I don't think anyone here is capable of understanding the concept of a consciousness without form. If there is such a thing as a consciousness without a way to express itself then it is really, to me, is not a consciousness. That's like saying there are a bunch of novels out there that exist but have yet to be conceived in someones mind. Someone has to think about them before they are put into physical form but they exist before they are even thought about. I feel no less eternal to believe that I had Heavenly parents that through their exhalted status gave birth to me, than if I believed that I already existed before and they simply gave me a shape or form. In either case, I know my spirit lives on as I know you do too. Thanks for the convo.

I don't because I think He was born at some point. But if I am wrong about it, it's not part of my testimony or faith in Jesus because I won't really know the answer until the next life anyways.

I believe there has always been a Christ as the plan of progression is eternal. Like Joseph Smith puts it, a ring that goes round and round, the same pattern over and over.

Lol, I guess as a woman I was taking offense to the statement that women don't have seed (offspring). (me <-- repenting)

No. Not, anymore than I think the elements that make up my physical body right now had awareness of self.

I was curious what Johnof123 meant by that. ... Then to plug that into Genesis 3:15, you are saying the sperm of the woman shall bruise Satan's heel?