Seminarysnoozer

I had similar interviews before I was married and felt the same way, to the point of trying to avoid interviews with the bishop. But, now that I have children of my own, I am thankful for our Bishops in depth questions so there is no confusion as to what is living the law of chastity and not. Especially in our world today with the Bill Clinton definition of sex and the like, I think, unfortunately, the bishop has to be specific with those questions.

Then, also, what you are saying too is that we do not have God the Father's DNA in us, otherwise Adam would have been a 'begotten' as well.

Sounds like everyone is saying "doubt' is anything shy of being all knowing. Questions arise when one doesn't know something. Guess I am in a state of continual doubt then. Many posts here seem to imply that there is no difference between 'unknown' and 'doubt'. Well, since I don't know everything, then I am in a state of continual doubt ... Is that what everyone is saying? Never thought of it that way. I thought 'doubt' implied something more negative than 'question' like telling yourself it is 'unlikely.' I guess I'll have to change my definition of doubt.

Of course not. Why would you ask that?

Yes, this is interesting. I appreciate you sharing your views here. I am curious what you think God's purpose is then, it certainly can't be to have someone else to walk around with. Does "reconciled with God" mean you have no more business with God? I feel a little jealous sometimes, it seems like every other religion's heaven is a place where you get to just hang out where the LDS heaven entails working your behind off forever.

Its nucleic acids that code for amino acids but I get your point. I understand the variability of the current system, genetic variations, I am postulating the lack of variability in perfect systems. I wonder if genetic variations are part of the "corruption." And once we put off corruption for incorruption there are no more genetic variations. I don't think God would build something that would randomly fall apart or change or mutate, it seems unlikely to me that variability was built into the system. More likely, God would "build" into the system immortality, which He did in Adam and Eve. After the "building" of the plants and the animals came Adam and Eve and that was the end of his "building", He didn't "build" anything else. ...unless you call how Jesus was formed "building." I think if one is exactly like God in every way, that is the only way to really fully understand His ways and His handiwork. If seeking one eternal archetype does not lead you to an understanding, how many archetypes are we supposed to seek?

Let me ask it this way specifically to help me understand this fear of lack of variability. Why would God give, at the resurrection, bodies to two individuals that are assigned to the same level of glory that differ in height for example? A perfected glorified body, made of different material than what we have here on earth, that is permanent, why would one be taller or shorter than another? What would that variability be based on? There is some randomness that is out of Gods control? or would God just be random for the sake of randomness and variability? I don't understand a God who would do something without purpose. I realize I don't know Gods ways but on the flip side, it seems that a lot of people are sure its the other way, variability. I just don't understand the purpose of variability (of the body, not intelligences) in the next life. Other than you think it is related to beauty somehow (unlike the uniformity of synchronized swimming for example which is just plain ugly - joking), why would one person be shorter than another in the next life?

I agree that there is variation in the degree of development and that's why I said earlier I am not talking about the variation of comparing a baby to an adult, for example. Like comparing the mustard seed to the mustard plant. But if you were to compare the mustard plant to the mustard plant, you think there would be variability in perfection? I think that is the underlying nature of the separation of the kingdoms and I think the higher you are placed in those kingdoms the more alike you are. Just like the idea of stars being at various strengths and the sun being one. Part of the determination of God placing us into a kingdom is based on our desires, what is in our heart, the natures of our spirits that you speak about being there from pre-earthly life, meaning we will be with people who have similar desires. I agree though that those similarities will be more and more varied the further one is away from the celestial kingdom. Its that thought that makes me wonder about the opposition (seemingly) between perfection and variety.

But see to me, that discussion is different than a discussion of the appearance of the body and the lack of variability of the body.

Really? I thought that was the promise, that all He has we can have, that we can become like Him. So, what is meant by "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."? I am getting the impression a lot of people believe that is saying just to be sinless. I guess I'll have to set my sights a little lower then .... I was going for the whole enchilada, and I thought most LDS are. Isn't everyone, in every kingdom of glory sinless once they arrive at their kingdom of glory? So, I guess I have to specify, then to continue the conversation - Is there variety in the highest level of the celestial kingdom? I realize that exaltation isn't the end of our progress and so we won't be invited into the Godhead at that moment, but isn't that the promise that we can become like our Heavenly Father (and Mother)? And if you make it to exaltation the body we get at the resurrection will never leave us, never dissolve even though I agree we still have much more development to go through. Somehow this shifted from talking about physical creations and variety to spiritual development, I am not proposing anything different from what you are saying from a spiritual development view. Unless you think there are also physical changes to the perfected body that occur over time, that's an interesting thought, maybe? But even then it seems to all the lines of variety come together at some point. The goal is one. If one makes it to the highest level of the celestial kingdom I can't see how that person would obtain a perfected incorruptible body that would be any different than Gods. If you think so, why do you think it would be a different model or style?

Again, I am talking about perfection. Of course variety is plentiful in a world of corruption, which is not perfect. The process of getting to perfection also requires variety, I wasn't proposing that either, I agree with those concepts. But, I was asking about variety in a state of perfection. and comparing trees to people ... I am not talking about various "kinds" of life. The only two people that I am aware God created in such a way as to be perfect that we know about are Adam and Eve. Even Jesus was not "perfect" in the sense that he did not have an immortal perfected body. There are writings of the "first Adam" and the "second Adam" and even there it is not a fair comparison because one is comparing an immortal body to a mortal body. So, when you say no two people are alike .... what two perfected beings are you talking about? I am not talking about corrupted states, there is variety in corrupted states, I have no doubt to that. You say "infinity lies in diversity", I don't know. I think God is the same as he was, as he is now and as he will always be ... that does not sound diverse but is definitely infinite.

Yes, that means that they are not all in the same body. Which I agree. It doesn't say, though, that their bodies are different from each other in size, shape, form (except the HG of course) ... that its not the same model. Of course there are things that make them different, one is the Father one is the son. But I believe if placed in the same setting with the same decision they would express themselves exactly the same, the scriptures say so. When I read scriptures like; John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." It sounds to me that Jesus has no desire to do anything different than what his Father would do, to me there is no difference in their personality or actions if put in the same setting. That didn't happen, being in the same setting exactly, because they have different roles. To me, the definition of perfect means that one would use all attributes the same and in the same manner if in the same setting. Or do you think there are more than one set of attributes that could be described as perfect once the fullness of perfection has been reached (a God)?

You are right there is a place for variety; 1 Corinthians 15: 41 "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." or D&C 76:98 Stars differ and therefore have variety.

I tried to make it clear too, in as few words as I could, that I wasn't taking about the various "kinds" of animals and plants. I agree, it was beautiful with various "kinds." I am proposing the variability amongst the same "kind" happened after the fall. I think there is a difference between various species and variability amongst a certain species, just like there was only one human (male and female) form. The other premise is that God created everything before the fall, He technically did not create everything that came after the fall, those things came about after their reproductive ability of their kinds.

I wasn't talking about various personalities per se, as I believe that is a function of the spirit, as you say "unique spirits." And the development of the spiritual perfection will take a very long time, I believe. All those lessons learned will be to their benefit in the next life. I was referring more to the change that occurs in the process of the fall and subsequently in the resurrection. But even then, after one reaches spiritual perfection many eons from now, there is no reason to believe that one perfect being would be more spunky or gentle or funny than another perfect being. I don't look at it as loosing their uniqueness but having a fullness of all the talents and abilities possible. 100% looks like 100%, the only way you can have uniqueness is when it is less than 100%.

But see, that's the question for me, did God create that variety (not talking about the various "kinds") or did the variety (meaning different shapes sizes colors etc.) occur as a result of the fall?

Can variability and variety exist with perfection? I realize variety is a part of this world, in a fallen state. Sometimes the word variety can mean a grouping of different kinds of things. For example, I know God created various animals each of their kind. I am more curious though about the variability that exists in the same kind of creation. Holding one rose bush up to another rose bush, one can clearly see the variability. But what I am curious about is if He introduced variety into that specific "kind" or was that a feature of the fall. I am also not talking about different ages of things, such as a baby compared to an adult. You might think of it as different breeds. In other words, when God creates cattle and fowl etc. on a world, do you think he mixes it up sometimes? ... this time I'll make the cattle brown with white spots ... Or does He make the same type every time, because he does not change, He does not vary and there is only "one" form of perfection? The reason to consider this question is because when He restores all things to their perfected, immortal state, including us by-the-way, do you think there are various models of that creation. Or does variability have no place in perfection? Why would one dog be taller or fatter than another perfect dog? Why would one perfect lion have more hair than another perfect lion? And consider resurrection, "not one hair lost" ... lost from what? ...lost from the original creation and lost by the fall, right? A restoration is to bring it back to the way it was when it was first created. My leaning is that there are not different models for perfection, there is only one way, one type, one image. And it seems the closer one is to perfection, the less variable one is. For example, Jesus being like God in every way, even His image. I ponder this. Please don't rail me for these questions, they are just questions. So the basic question again is can variability or variety exist with perfection? The Webster's definitions of perfection are "lacking in no essential detail" and "being entirely without fault or defect" and "faithfully reproducing the original."

We have some small glimpses of what it is like. I agree, nobody really knows and Jesus will reveal all these things when He returns. But we do know that the garden of Eden and its descriptions fit with a paradisaical state. I am not a vegetarian, I eat meat and serve meat to my family. My chicken enchiladas are to die for, if I do say so myself. And, I do not see anything wrong with being a vegetarian. But, I also believe we are here too, to try to overcome the world and not develop affinity for things that are sub-celestial. Even Jesus was tempted by Lucifer with food after fasting. Now, maybe everyone else but me knows exactly in this world what is sub-celestial and what is celestial. I only know of a few places that are celestial, the temple and I try to make my home that way too. Everything else in this world is in a fallen state, including food. I am not trying to say it is evil, it's just not celestial. And if it is not celestial I do not want to develop any attachment to it ... or at least try not to. I don't think meat is part of the equation for eternal happiness, that's my belief. That doesn't mean I think it is evil any more than I think money is inherently evil unless you develop a love for it. I think it is okay to like meat and enjoy meat but I think when we think it is tied into eternal happiness the line has been crossed. I certainly wouldn't say money is tied into eternal happiness. And if making money in the stock market brought me happiness here I wouldn't consider it as something available in the next life just because it makes me happy here. ... Meat is good, just don't make it a "love." “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” [1 John 2:15.]

Maybe this is the offering from God you are referring to? “When the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things,” our latter-day revelations tell us—“Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof.” (D&C 101:32–33.)

How did his relationship with God grow closer if he was an ever existing God before coming here? ... and "waxed strong in spirit" doesn't sound physical to me. Waxing is a process of building little by little isn't it? How does a God wax strong in spirit?

I was referring to the struggle of deciding whether any verse or story in the scriptures was literal versus allegorical. Even though I used the word "you" I didn't mean you as in you 'Snow.' I apologize, I misspoke there. I meant to say, "if one struggles with knowing whether a story is literal or allegorical it is possible to leave it, uninterpreted. That is great that you have it all figured out. It seemed to me that you started out talking about a struggle between literalism versus allegorical interpretations. But maybe struggle isn't the right word. I know I struggle sometimes in understanding the scriptures ... but ok, maybe there is no struggle, .... what are we talking about then? As for the second part I am not sure what you are saying there, sorry. At least there I was using the word "one. " I need to use that more often. Humility is required to understand the scriptures, I think there are many sources for that, like 2 Nephi 9:42. Even study, prayer and meditation are not enough sometimes if one doesn't "call themselves fools before God" meaning admitting that one struggles in understanding and does not have all the answers. And the last sentence there, I agree ... I was responding to you telling me that I took the book of Job as a history book. And again, that wasn't meant to be 'you' Snow, that was supposed to be 'Why would anyone take it as a history book?' ... its my lack of experience with formal discussion about these things in this way, I'm used to face to face casual discussions but I realize in some places here I need to be more formal and use the word 'one' more.

If Jesus was all powerful before, how did he grow in wisdom and stature and especially in favor with God? Luke 2:52

It is the same question as asking why he had to be baptized. Because even he was a God the second before he was baptized, (for those that don't believe in the pre-existance) why go through with it?

To me, the King Follett (why does that name always make me think of salmon?) sermon supports the idea that God gave birth to spirit children. When I read the King Follett sermon, which I have done many times because it is confusing but interesting, I get the impression that what he is trying to say is that God could not create spirits as he does not have the power to create them from nothing but that does not mean that he could not procreate them. What's the difference? In procreation, like here on earth, the baby is made from DNA from both the mother and father meaning it was there before and the materials come from earth, there wasn't added material. It is not a new creation. Adams body, however was created, from the dust of the earth and then his spirit was placed in that creation. He has the power to create bodies but He does not have the power to create, from scratch, spirits. In other words He has to procreate them, a power that is out of His control. Exactly how He procreates them I don't know, but the material and the program (the equivalent of DNA or however we get HF traits in us) already exist. This to me is also comforting because it explains why some spirits seem to be inclined to evil, like Lucifer. If He actually created them from scratch I would have a hard time understanding how he could make an evil spirit. But knowing that it is out of His power, like the process of procreation, I can see how there are spirits with a propensity for evil produced. His focus is clearly to explain that the spirit did not start at the persons earthly birth and therefore does not end at the persons earthly death. In front of people that probably grew up with the idea that the soul is created at birth here, I can see why he would have to stress that point to such a group. (just like we sometimes have to do here in this forum) And the paragraph about being found in the midst of intelligences could easily fit with a time in which those spirits grew up, now what do we do? To me, that doesn't take away from Him being our Father, just like when I graduated from High School, my father said What are we going to do now? "You are going to go to college ... time for you to leave the house." Again, his point is that our real home is there, not here on earth. And at a funeral, that would be a very comforting thing to say and remind the family members about. Death is actually going back home to where we existed before. And the goal is that we will have spirit children of our own some day so the circle continues, thus the example of the ring.

I like this discussion because to me everything important in the gospel has to do with the body and so many religions focus much more on the non-body parts of the gospel. I think this is what distinguishes LDS from most religions is our focus on the body. For example, we know we could only progress so far without a body. The fall of Adam caused a change in the body and the resurrection of Jesus has to do with a sacrifice of the body and returning in body. The whole probationary period has to do with determining what type of body we get forever. Think of the anointing of the body, for those that have been through the temple. Thoughts can even develop or change after death, the spirit prison. But one thing that will never change is after we get our immortal perfected body it cannot change or develop. It will be a body that allows for Eternal progression or it will not, one that will have a limit. One will not be able to jump from a limited body to an unlimited body. And of the glory of the sun there is one body and of the glory of the moon there is one body but of the stars there are many. A place of lesser glory has variety, a place of higher glory there is one to the point of really having His image in our countenance. I wonder about the need for God to introduce His son when appearing to Joseph and as depicted in our earthly interpretation of that event, in films, they appear the same. And this is what creates confusion about them being the same or even Adam and God being the same ... because they had the same body, the same type of body, I suspect. The same body that we are all trying to obtain, a God body. The reason this is important to talk about is that knowing this is the purpose tells us that achieving salvation is not just a state of mind, it is a physical process as well. The whole belief about lip service alone will not get you salvation makes more sense when you understand one of the main themes of the gospel is the body, getting a temporary one, overcoming its influences and then obtaining an immortal body and all that goes with it. If it was just a state of mind, we wouldn't need earth or be placed in an immortal body and we wouldn't need a savior. We are reminded of the need for a body every week.