Seminarysnoozer
-
Posts
3421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Seminarysnoozer
-
-
In general if we talk about the fall of Mankind (outside of Adam and Eve) - we must think of the fall in spiritual terms only. This is because whatever physical body we have in mortality it is physically greater (superior) than what we were physically in the pre-existence. You and I suffered only a spiritual fall – we did not suffer a physical fall. What we got was in essence a significant physical upgrade or advantage. Along this same line it would be incorrect to speak of a restoration of our physical body to a state that did not ever previously exist.
It should be obvious from scripture of unclean spirits willing to inhabit even swine that the one in third part of heaven that rebelled was not because of physical limitations but because of the spiritual disadvantage that they would suffer from the spiritual corruption of the fall.
Also in another post – that I have lost and cannot find – perhaps in another thread – you posted that you believe that the human brain was hard wired for sin. If this was true it would mean that children are born hard wired for sin and would be incapable of doing anything else. This is a contradiction of your arguments that children are pure and cannot be corrupted until after they reach the age (physical condition) of accountability.
I disagree. And you would be disagreeing with Alma 42 as well as the basic LDS doctrine if you really believe that the Fall only brought about a spiritual fall for us. Because the Fall is both physical and spiritual, the atonement allows for immortality as well as eternal life, not just eternal life. We would not need the gift of immortality without the Fall.
We do not think of the Fall in spiritual terms only. Just the same, we do not think of the effects of the atonement in spiritual terms only. The atonement also allows us to overcome the physical effects of the body - death.
Alma 42; "7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.
8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.
9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.
10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state."
Alma 11:"43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."
Alma 40; " 23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."
What is the definition of "restore" = to bring back, to repair. Our bodies were and will never be perfect or in a perfect frame in this life. So, how could the body be "restored"? It is brought back to the way it was formed perfectly, in the Garden of Eden.
You, too, have posted previously that you considered the idea that we all had to go through a "garden of eden" experience. Well, here, I am giving you some support for that idea and you don't want to take it. I am surprised.
Bruce R. McConkie from Ensign 1982; "“Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …
“… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …
“… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world”
Elder Nelson 1996; "“The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.
“… The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death”
The Fall affected Adam and Eve "and their posterity" and caused what is called "the mortal creation" as opposed to the paradisiacal creation. The difference between a "paradisiacal creation" and a "mortal creation" is described as "significant" by Elder Nelson.
2 Nephi 9:" 7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more."
Without the flesh rising our spirits would become subject to the devil. Think about that. Spiritual salvation depends on physical salvation. This is the part that I keep talking about because our religion does not explain in any detail why it is so important to have a body to have spiritual salvation. I find this a very interesting topic.
-
Mormons have a pretty darn interesting scripture that other Christians don't have.
So to answer your question, yes, we humans must forgive ALL. Even rapists and murderers. And then we leave the rest to God. If you or someone you love has been a victim of something like this, it almost sounds like a deal breaker for believing in God. But it's possible. Not only is it possible, but it's a blessing when it happens.
My wife and I have done it. We speak from experience.
If this sounds undoable or crazy, give this Ensign article a go:
Thanks, great post!
I think one of the things that helps when faced with trying to forgive someone who has committed a serious and especially hurtful sin is to remember that the person is one who was faithful in the pre-mortal world. They passed the first estate test like the rest of us and will merit a Kingdom of glory that is greater than any of us can comprehend. We should treat that person as one who merits a Kingdom of glory that is higher than anything on Earth.
We also cannot understand all the reasons behind such events, all the circumstances and state of mind and what is in a person's heart when they do such things as the body sometimes acts on its own without the spirit being in control. Think about the things that are done when a person is drunk for example, would they really act that way with full faculties? I also think about examples such as the mass murder that occured at the University of Texas in Aug 1966 where 16 people were killed and 32 wounded. On the surface one might say, how could a person like that receive any forgiveness at all but it turns out he had a brain tumor that some suggest was pressing on his amygdala which controls things like anger and fight/flight response and he was on medications for those symptoms. We cannot say how much those things caused him to do what he did vs his spirit driving those actions but God will sort that out. In other cases there may be similar situations that we never learn about or can understand, but again God will take all those things into consideration and forgive whom He will based in all the information.
-
Finally, modern day LDS feminists in their approach to explaining the husband/wife dynamic tend to conveniently forget about polygamy. I know some use equality thinking to contend that polygamy therefore cannot logically be the eternal order of things. But there are way to many historical records of those in the early days of polygamy having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it is what convinced them to join into polygamy for that to fly in my thinking.
I'm not saying the article is wrong or that men and women should not be equally yoked in the family dynamic...but there's something that is not being understood somewhere in there that needs to be addressed. I can't say I have explanations. But I can, certainly, notice that they're missing.
What do you mean by "having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it ..."? What do you mean by "it"?
That sounds like a silly question but what I am getting at is whether in those visions the "it" refers to having obeyed a commandment while on Earth (it happening to be polygamy in this case) or actually refers to receiving glory from continuing to live polygamy in the next life. In the examples of what I have read concerning those kinds of visions that come from even leaders in the church, in my view (admittedly looking at these things through female eyes), the glory that pertains to living such a law is something that goes on through the eternities because now all those women who have had now the chance to live in a Celestial-type marriage in this life will have that opportunity in the next life and that will continue on forever. Your right, who wouldn't want to be a part of that. To me, it is the same thing as saying how great shall be your joy if you bring one soul unto me. If a missionary baptizes one soul, then that soul shares the gospel with others etc, the happiness that is created by such a thing is one that brings eternal joy because it continues on in the next life, that soul continuing to bring about immortality and eternal life to others (if they remain faithful). Likewise, anyone who is given a commandment, whether it be polygamy or something else that results in eternal convenents for that person will enjoy the blessings eternally for providing such an opportunity. I think that coincides with what is meant by the posterity of Abraham, the linked opportunity to enjoy these eternal covenents will provide all those blessings promised to Abraham. I am not sure what more you are reading into those accounts unless you specifically show them and discuss them. For me, at least, there is no hang-up there.
-
I do not believe our bodies are limited to only have enough intelligence for this probationary state; to be true or even observable. There are many creatures with far less reasoning capabilities that operate very well in this fallen carnal state. For example ants – their aggregate weight is about the same as human and they modify their environment – many believe more successfully than humans.
Human as a physical creation are the most noble, intelligent mortal beings and are even in the likeness of G-d himself - far beyond any other creature. With that in mind I would suggest refraining from characterizing G-d’s best and most beloved creation as “stupid”.
The scriptures tell – as well as our modern prophets warn us specifically that the fall of man is both spiritual and physical. I see nothing in scripture or anything observable that would indicate that the physical fall was more to any degree than the spiritual fall we suffer from no longer enjoying G-d presents nor having actual memory of our past spiritual achievements. In fact I would go so far in this matter and discussion to say that every evil committed by man and every wrong doing that has taken place over the entire probation of man in this fallen condition has been a spiritual failure of the individual; caused mostly from the spiritual fall and not a result of our so-called inferior physical condition.
(there is nothing in your third paragraph that I disagree with, and I am not sure what point you are trying to make with it)
To give an example of "operating well" in this state is not showing how our bodies have intelligence beyond what is needed here.
The body, as it is now, is for this life. Yes, it is. The body for the next life is a resurrected body. If you are trying to say that there is no difference between the two types of bodies then that is a discussion for another thread - because likely that will take a lot of discussion to work through that. I think it is pretty well accepted that there is a difference between a body that turns to dust vs one that is eternal and glorified and can withstand to be in the presence of a glorified Kingdom. Even the Telestial Kingdom's glory is beyond what we can withstand with our current body and form. We cannot comprehend it even with this body. D&C 76; " 89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;"
So, how are you saying that our bodies are capable of understanding things beyond this realm when in D&C 76 says that even the lowest Kingdom "surpasses all understanding"?
"Stupid" is not the best word to use but I was only using it because that is what was used to describe "ape-women" in previous posts - to use the words that were used as a reason why there could be none of that DNA. In the grand scheme of things, if there is an intelligence level less than that capable of understanding even the lowest level of glory then I don't think it is way off in left field to call it "stupid". Now if you are comparing human intelligence to all other creatures on the planet (which we were not doing) then, yes, that is not right to call it "stupid".
Again, this all comes to how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous state. Some want to think that things were not so different in the pre-mortal life. Let me put it this way, it was enough of a stark difference from our previous state that a third of the host of heaven were pretty concerned about doing such a thing, it had to be that much of a fall to create that much hesitancy in going forward with it.
Metaphorically, I think it would at least equal to the kinds of thoughts one has before going into surgery, do I really want to be put under and put all my faith in this doctor who is going to cut into me and I could potentially die? In fact, I think the comparison change in a person before anesthesia and during anesthesia is pretty similar ratio to how much we changed from before this world to this current state. I think that is how strong the veil is and how strong the Fall was. ("Stupid" is not the best word to use but if one were to compare the "intelligence" level of one under anesthesia to before anesthesia it is certainly is in the "stupid" category or less.) Likewise, that is the magnitude of how saving the saving grace of Christ is, to pull us out of that anesthetic like state of near death. However far the Fall was is to the same degree at least (but even more so) the saving grace of Christ is.
-
I agree. But I would still maintain that even in spirit form, relative to God, we were stupid. :) Of course that is only conjecture. We don't really know.
Ok, but the point of that is that our bodies only have to have enough intelligence to reason in order to set up this probationary state we are in. The body doesn't have to be equal to the spirit in terms of capacity or intelligence while here.
I think that is where the line is drawn in terms of people that might have conditions in which they cannot have accountability, i.e. - Down's syndrome.
Also, realize, there are conditions in which humans have IQs less than apes (not trying to be rude about using that reference, only that it was used in this discussion specifically as an impossibility) and yet are genetically related to human beings and have a spirit attached to them. So, to think that God would never put a spirit into that kind of body just because of an intelligence level issue is absolutely not true.
-
Surely you don't believe that our spirits, even sans physical body, are on par with God's intelligence.
Of course not but I would think our spirits are closer to God's intelligence level than they are to the fallen human brain level.
Why? How intelligent do you think a spirit would be, spending eons in the presence of God and fully matured, learning all that it could while in that condition?
-
*shrug* It's an interesting theory.
Whether we call them pre-adamites or contemporaries of Adam's multi-million year exit from the garden is not really meaningful to me as to whether we are related to "beasts" that our forefathers mated with or not. I don't believe that either way.
I believe all mankind is directly descended from Adam and Eve. Period. This is what the scriptures teach. This is what the prophets teach. And trying to fit scientific discoveries into it that don't really fit does not appeal to me. I'm more likely to believe that there were human-ish non-spirit-children-of-God creatures that existed prior to (or even contemporary to) Adam, with the removal of the, they're my great-great-great...great-great grand-pappy and mammy theory.
I am disinclined to accept science that is clearly doing a whole bunch of guess-work from a species that is only capable of interpreting empirical evidence from a flea-on-dog perspective. Moreover, it doesn't take much research to find all sorts of "what about this" sort of issues in the record. These anomalies are brushed aside as unimportant because they don't fit the presumed model. I simply don't accept it as a foregone conclusion that our DNA has proven us related to a species that most of what we know about is sheer guess-work from evidence so ancient and inexact that we can never the real story.
So, like I said... *shrug*
"We" are not our bodies. I guess that is the factor that allows me to be okay with such a concept. Whereas, I understand people are fairly sensitive about that issue. My spirit is a daughter of God. My corrupt body that I currently possess is dust and doesn't have to be related to anything in particular for me to be able to one day receive the body that has all the divine characteristics it needs. All it has to be is in the image of God and provide me enough ability to reason that agency is in play.
What does being the descendent of Adam and Eve really provide? Look at the differences between the shortest man and the tallest man on Earth, the heaviest and the lightest, the variations in IQ etc, the variability amongst our current population of humans is enough to prove that we do not have to be in the exact likeness of Adam, like Seth or Able was. WIth each generation there is a change in the DNA. There are mutations, transcription errors - a certain mutation rate that is inherit in the system but then on top of that how behaviors change which DNA is passed on adds to the change. Again, we are descendents of the fallen Adam and Eve, not descendents of the body as it was created in the Garden of Eden. Whether it is mixed with other DNA's is not that important because the change from Garden to Telestial is enough, unless one thinks Adam and Eve didn't really fall that far.
There is only one that needed to be a direct descendent, the Only Begotten. The rest of us have no need to be Begotten, physically, while here in mortality.
-
Really? I had no idea.
What is your point? I don't see how this has anything to do with whether Adam's posterity got busy with the supposed Preadamites or not.
How do you know that he specifically meant "humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it". That's a stretch-and-a-half made-up translation to suit your purposes. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the point he was making, that being that the church had no doctrine on the matter.
As has been pointed out, all creatures have spirits. This is a fine theory, except that it doesn't fit what we know.
D&C 77:2
2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
Unless you're contending that God did not create these other human-like-but-not-apes-'cause-that's-offensive creatures (
I know...I can't resist the snarkiness) then the no spirit thing flies in the face of scripture.Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending with that statement.
My point is that you made it sound like this could go against the doctrine of the church and I am making points that it doesn't conflict with them. I didn't use the word pre-adamites. We were talking about something contemporary to Adam, not "pre".
God created every creature in the Garden of Eden. The Fall (secondarily) caused all the things we see around us now to look and act and behave the way it does. I don't think we have any evidence of anything that was around during the time that God created all things in the Garden of Eden. The whole Earth changed and will have to be changed back to that state before it can accomodate anything that was created in the Garden of Eden. The Fall was not just Adam and Eve walking out of some secluded area walled off from God's other creations. Adam named all the creatures while in the Garden so there was nothing kept from him. I think the Fall was bigger than we make it out to be, thus the opposing atonement is often bigger than we make it out to be.
Like I stated before, one of the pieces of this puzzle that one has to ponder is how long it took for Adam to be removed from the Garden - we don't know, a couple million years? who knows? Then the Fall resulted in this process of death that is a very important part of evolution. There is no evolution without death. So, if we are somehow going to suppose some way the two good work together we have to say that any evolutionary process we know about occured after the Fall of Adam.
As the "dust" was being prepared for Adams entry into this fallen world, God could have used all sorts of methods to allow for a Telestial like world in which to conduct this test we face now. The evidence of that process could be in the form of all these humanoids and archeological findings etc. So, these races are not really pre-adamite. And this is why I have tried to be careful about saying son or daughter of God spirit as opposed to the spirit of a beast or the spirit matter that exists in all physical matter.
Does a zygote that is formed by the process of in vitro fertilization have a spirit son or daughter of God attached to it that seperates from it when it is killed after sitting in the tube for a while, "alive" and then "dead"?
I realize I have made some confusing statements and may sound like I am waffling, it is not on purpose, just part of the discussion and learning process.
-
I've pretty much stayed out of your spiritual vs. carnal debate...but I have to interject a question. If all evil stems from the carnal, then how do you explain Satan and the third of the hosts of heaven?
Evil comes from having agency, without the choice we do not call it evil, we call it being more or less valiant or faithful. At the point of the first estate test, God gave us agency. Then there were those that chose one way and others that chose another way. All of us in this world chose the right way. None of us enter this life as "evil". Our spirits are not "evil" because we did not choose against the plan of God. Yes, some were more valiant than others but when it came down to having agency and revealing our alignment, we all aligned with God. Those that were cast out did not align their selves with God and then were cast out. And then there was wailing and gnashing of teeth (metaphor for carnality). Satan then was given power over the dust (not over our spirit) to again create the agency we need here for the test we face here. Once a person here chooses carnality over spirituality then they become "evil". But to do that one has to have agency and accountability, thus those that die before the age of 8 are automatically accepted into the Celestial Kingdom. This test is not an all or nothing designation as it was in the first estate test as God has to take into account the strength of influences surrounding every choice and event, like the 'forgive them for they know not what they do' conditions. This second estate test is like grading all the "A" students, the test gets harder but they all get a reward. (of course, with exception to those that become the sons of perdition)
-
I disagree that it does not go against our gospel teachings. But my response is "just pondering" in the same regard. As I stated earlier, the official church position is no position.
"The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good." James E. Talmage
To be snarky and express my contempt for the idea.
I simply do not believe that we interbred with "humanoid-creatures" (yes, I know...another snarky description) that were not of the race of Adam. The entire idea is ludicrous to me.
You do realize that because of the Fall, Adam and Eve's bodies were changed from the original creation. Christ's atonement and our ability to now overcome the effects of the Fall is based in the idea that our current body will turn back to dust from where it came and that we will have a new body, similar to the original bodies Adam and Eve had.
Whatever form of "dust" our body has and how it came to be, really does not matter a lot in the long run, it is a temporary creation and existence, it is less than the body of Adam and Eve created in the Garden of Eden. Our bodies are not descended from the original body Adam and Eve had but from the fallen bodies they had after the Fall. Christ will later give us the body that is descended from the original creation of God with resurrection.
Also, I have read Talmage' statement about this topic many times and I would point to the use of the words "human beings". In that sense, I agree because I believe the use of the words "human being" refers to a humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it. Before Adam there were no groups that had a humanoid body and an attached child of God spirit. That does not rule out the possibility of humanoids without a child of God spirit - i.e. - children of men.
And, if they had no child of God spirit attached to them then there could be no "death" according to the gospel definition of death which is a separation of the spirit from the body.
-
Just a note and observation about sin. As much as I would personally like sin to be abhorrent the simple truth, at least for me, is that not only is there some attractiveness associated with sin – but sin can also be habit forming. I have decided to avoid sin but it is not because it is abhorrent. The sins I have the most problems avoiding are both fun and exciting and they are not that difficult to rationalize if it comes down that that sort of thing.
The problem for me with sin is not in finding some excuse to be involved with sin – my problem is the hassle that comes from trying to repent of sin. In fact I am convinced that it we could somehow make repentance truly as easy as many say it is at church – I would be much more willing to try a lot more sins.
Exactly!
... Just make it easy on yourself and accept the thing that we have debated over and over again, that your brain's natural drive is to sin and the spirit's natural drive is to obey God. The sins are hard-wired, carnality is hard-wired, being an enemy to God is hard-wired by our corrupted nature, the body - i.e, the body is weak even when the spirit is willing. The choice is continually before us while in this life, carnality vs spirituality. Paul desired the thorn in the flesh to be gone in this life but realized it would exalt him above measure. If one could really get rid of that in this life then it would be like a 1st grader walking into medical school class - exalted above measure, higher than what we should be currently tested on and therefore not really a fair test. Be glad for the thorn in the flesh as the struggle with it is where the growth comes from but remain in hope in realizing the "thorn in the flesh" will be for a short moment.
-
Really? So, scripturally, Adam is the first "man", but you're translating "daughters of men" to mean ape-women that weren't born of Adam?
I don't see the problem in pondering such an idea. To me, it doesn't go against any of our accepted gospel teachings. But, still, it is just a pondering, nothing more.
Why are you calling them "ape-women"? The most recent articles I have seen about the subject suggest that most of the unfair comparisons made about Neanderthals is because the comparisons are made with groups of humans that lived at a different time. One article states it this way; "So far, Neanderthals have been subjected to unfair comparison because "[r]esearchers were comparing Neanderthals not to their contemporaries on other continents but to their successors," Dr. Villa said. "It would be like comparing the performance of Model T Fords, widely used in America and Europe in the early part of the last century, to the performance of a modern-day Ferrari and conclude that Henry Ford was cognitively inferior to Enzo Ferrari."
And I have seen other articles suggest that the small portion of Neanderthal DNA we have has helped our creativity.
What is really interesting is that one of the theories for their demise is male hybrid sterility. If that is true, I can see why they would want to go and find some other males.
And, it is certainly possible that all of that mixing of neanderthal DNA occured before Adam.
-
Interesting play on logic. If we mortals are so stupid why would we make convenants with G-d, receive the Holy Ghost, become a Saint and try to believe in anything?
We are not wholly one or the other. We are sons and daughters of God covered in a body that is "stupid", the corrupted, mortal body and brain. When one listens to their spiritual influences over their "stupid" brain, then they make covenents with God and by doing so grow in spiritual influence becoming less "stupid". If one listens more to their "stupid" brain they become hardened to the spirit, stiff necked, blinded, darkened, etc.
-
Apparently my use of a simple example of an illusionist dissuaded you from consideration of the rest of my suggested variables. Strange. I wouldn't have taken away from what I said that it meant "God is an illusionist". The clear implication is that we, as mortals, are stupid -- not that God is deceptive.
But God put us here as mortals. Consider the value and purpose of the veil. We are supposed to be behind a curtain of uncertainty, that is part of the purpose of this life and God set it up that way. That is what allows for a test of character as opposed to a test of fundamental knowledge. The fundamental knowledge test was the first estate test. Now is the test to see if we will do the things we are supposed to despite not having all the knowledge. This is why I believe this drive for having all the knowledge now is not really what this life is about, it will return to us, if we are faithful and once the veil is removed. We had all the "empirical evidence" shown to us before this life began.
-
I place personality, belief, hope, and desire into what makes up will (I could probably throw in intelligence defined as the capability to attain knowledge, rather than knowledge itself). the reason i say will is the only thing that si really ours is because everything else than those things i mentioned are items that are acted upon rather than things that are core actors.
I tend to use the highest point i can see that primarily affects everything else that branches from it- the primary actors will be what is or the closest things that we have that would be truly ours, while all the branches would constitute what is given or what is mainly affected by what is given and how much the branches grow is how responsible we'll be held for that growth.
the more growth one has, the more power one will have and by the same token will be held that much more responsible.
The reason i do not place talent in tthat same category is because while the germ of a talent may be rooted in personality, talents are grown and acted upon, through interaction (or lost through inaction) with an environment that was not provided by us ultimately (and that the interaction is dictated by our will) hence its something that is acted upon. Nor can i find anything that should indicate otherwise for how they are developed in the spirit world.
The reason I also do not place knowledge as a core actor rather than something that is acted upon is because it is something that is affected by our wills as well as mainly by outside factors.
this question ultimately asks what is truly and uniquely ours and not God's to which there really isn't a good answer in scriptures, as well as at what makes us us. The closest i can find is what constitutes making a spirit (and unfortunately whats there doesnt really go in depth on it). The only other thing that i think that might give some idea is how the war in heaven was fought and what it was fought over for.
hence why about the only closest thing i'm willing to say that is completely ours is our will.... and even that isn't a 100%.
Thank you, great comments. I agree with most everything you say here.
As far as growth goes, remember that we matured as spirits before coming here. He grew as much as we could as a spirit.
There are many statements in the Church publications that state that we developed talents or we were given talents before coming to Earth and some of them we carried with us here. Gospel Principles Chapter 34; "
We all have special gifts, talents, and abilities given to us by our Heavenly Father. When we were born, we brought these gifts, talents, and abilities with us (see chapter 2 in this book).
The prophet Moses was a great leader, but he needed Aaron, his brother, to help as a spokesman (see Exodus 4:14–16). Some of us are leaders like Moses or good speakers like Aaron. Some of us can sing well or play an instrument. Others of us may be good in sports or able to work well with our hands. Other talents we might have are understanding others, patience, cheerfulness, or the ability to teach others."
And then in Chapter 2; "We were not all alike in heaven. We know, for example, that we were sons and daughters of heavenly parents—males and females (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). We possessed different talents and abilities, and we were called to do different things on earth. We can learn more about our “eternal possibilities” when we receive our patriarchal blessings (see Thomas S. Monson, in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 82; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 66)."
For some reason I kind of think of those that were drafted for World War 2. Some were assigned to be soldiers and they worked on those talents before going off to war and others might have been assigned to be an airplane mechanic and so they worked on those talents before going to war, and other might have been assigned to the artilery unit so they had to learn certain things, etc.
I wonder if God, knowing what our certain aptitudes were, "gave" us certain training so that we could develop specific talents that would be used here. Some got more training than others, more preparation as in Alma 13; " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such."
This makes it sound like they had already passed the First estate test, "they having chosen good", then they were called, then they were prepared. The question is; does "prepared" mean "given" talents? And that is what is refered to by where much is given much is required?
Even with that scenario, the "given" is based in "exceeding faith and good works" which goes back to what you are saying about the highest common trait, which would be will. But even then, the "preparation" could be viewed as a reward, something "given". For example, one of my relatives was in the Korean war as a pilot and then came home to fly commercial airplanes whereas another relative who was in the same war got no special training and ended up working in a field that had nothing to do with his service in the military. One was "given" the training the other wasn't.
The bottom line is that it behooves us to understand as best we can what has been "given" to us, what our special assignment is and the talents that were "given" as we are expected to use them here. A patriarchal blessing can help in that light.
What there is no evidence for, which I hear people say all the time, is that there is some special talent someone has that is not "given". For example, if someone said, I must have delevoped a talent and appreciation for music in the pre-mortal world, then what they are saying is that they were prepared for a special assignment by receiving such individual training that maybe someone else didn't get, not that they have some intrinsic spiritual personality trait that leans towards music, it was acquired once the assignment was given.
The reason to say it that way is because it puts a different light on how we view our differences, the assignments are different, not necesarily our leanings or preferences in the beginning. They become our preferences after the training, like my uncle who became a commercial airline pilot after his military training.
-
I believe you are making assumptions contrary to biological evidence. Did you know you have Neanderthal DNA? The percent of Neanderthal DNA increases for non-Africian sub-species. According to scripture, Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman. What the scriptures do not say is that Adam and Eve were the only humans. -- This thought ought to keep minds busy for a while.
I have thought about that before as well especially with this verse; Genesis 6:2 " 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
... then what happens, God realizes there is too much of that mix and so the flood comes to stop mixing in too much of that DNA.
But here is an additional thing to think about, in that light, that also ought to keep minds busy for a while; which part of the DNA is more like God's make up, the Neanderthal or the other humans?
-
I cannot find the limit points of the truth and knowledge that create the boundary of what we can learn by the spirit. Thus the only logical conclusion that I can report is that somewhere in your understanding and arguments there is a disconnect.
Let me ask you this, could Moses have seen the things he did without being transformed or carried away by the spirit?
We are limited not by the spirit but by the things that limit the spirit while here. The spirit itself has no endpoints but the graph paper that the line is drawn, the body and the mortal condition of being behind the veil, is limited. The graph paper does not have the capacity to fully represent the endless line. We can represent the endless line with little arrows at the end of the line but that is not actually drawing out the line with no endpoints. We don't actually have an endless line without limits, it is just being represented by arrows as a concept. We do not have endless capacity while here, thus the statement the spirit is wiling but the body is weak. We cannot accomodate everything while here. Even Moses couldn't write down everything he saw while taken away, he wouldn't have the capacity to do so, the words to describe it etc. As time went on he even probably forgot some of the things that were seen with that endless view.
In the next life that becomes possible. An eternal body, resurrected and in a state of glory might have an endless capacity but we certainly do not have that now. We have to strive to have eternal perspective, it is hard to have eternal perspective while we are here.
-
This is just one big logical fallacy. It is not that black and white. There's a whole host of comprehension, knowledge, translation, interpretation, illusion, etc., and most importantly, perception issues in play.
Surely, at the very least, you've been to magic shows and the like that empirically deny known truths via illusion.
I'm 100% with you on this one. The brain does an amazing job of making up information. It comes up with a logical explanation for things and turns it into what one thinks is actually perceived when it is not.
This has been shown over and over again. Sometimes, for example, people believe they have been molested when they haven't or had some traumatic experience in the past when it really hasn't occured. Or they swear they know who the perpetrator of the crime is but in reality have all the details wrong. Dreams are a good example of this, a made up story by the brain that can seem real. The blind spot in the visual field is made up of information that does not really exist, it is covered over by surrounding information, making the brain think there is that visual information in that spot. More often than not the evidence is skewed by the process of receiving the evidence. We forget most of what we hear. Our memory is not a video recorder but is based on the emotional response to a situation. If a situation is more emotionally charged we are more likely to remember it than if it is emotionally bland. Memory loss can be a part of depression, for example.
You are right, there are a lot of factors that go into simply knowing if the evidence is real or not.
-
When reason and empirical evidence stand in opposition to each other there is somewhere a disconnect. That disconnect could be in understanding of the empirical evidence or in the rhetorical logic we rely on for our “reason”. In science we saw this disconnect take place for over 100 years in the study of dinosaurs in thinking them to be exclusively cold blooded creatures. In religion we have seen this occur for over 1000 years as Christians believed the earth to be the center of the universe. I submit that only when reason conform with empirical evidence can there be any comprehension of the truth being witnessed to us.
I agree with what you are saying here as it pertains to comprehending the whole truth. But, in this life we are asked to reason without having the whole truth or at least in spite of not having it we have to move forward through reason. When there is not enough empirical evidence we still are asked to choose and that is done through reason.
I mean, you have state the problem well but that doesn't answer the question, which one do you choose? And we can't say, 'I'm undecided because I don't have all the empirical evidence yet.' To me, if one says that, that is the same as saying 'show me a sign', as it pertains to religion or religious topics.
-
If there is no empirical evidence there are other means to gain truth. My point is that when there is empirical evidence – it should not be ignored. I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie. But like scriptures may be misinterpreted by those seeking to prove their selfish and prejudice interests empirical evidence can be misinterpreted incorrectly in order to support selfish and prejudice interests.
Yes time dilation as a principle of relativity has been proven to take place.
As for things of the past showing on earth being creations of somewhere else – there is empirical evidence. For example, some of the larger dinosaurs were too massive for current earth gravity and mastodons frozen in Siberia had food being digested inside them also frozen, which would have required temperatures colder than can be found anywhere on earth and the only place where such temperatures currently exist are in outer space.
What happens with the uncommon situation where reason stands opposite to empirical evidence, which one do you choose? (I am not asking this in terms of this particular issue per se - in general)
The power to reason seems to be more valued in LDS teachings than does the ability to gather empirical evidence, as the power to reason goes hand in hand with agency which we hold dearly as one of the purposes of this life. The power to reason goes with "the desires of the heart". The "desires of the heart" is ignored with empirical evidence, it doesn't matter what the heart feels. Empirical evidence seems to melt away agency that is driven by the desires of the heart and in that way seems to go against the whole purpose of this life. The first estate test was one in which empirical evidence was tested. The second estate test is one in which reason is tested, reflecting our character through agency.
Like you said, empirical evidence should be used when available and especially if it coincides with reason, but what if they clash? By way of what one holds more valuable, one sometimes has to choose empirical evidence over reason or reason over empirical evidence. That may be an important part of the test - does one value reason more than empirical evidence?
John H. Vandenberg, presiding Bishop; "These persuasions of the heart are related to two opposing forces constantly at work within every human being. They are the forces of good and evil, which the Master referred to as God and mammon. Coupled with these forces is the individual’s power to reason, which only man, of all God’s creations, possesses. This enables him to make choices. It is man’s control valve of what he wants to be. The forces governed by his own reasoning determine the nature and quality of the choice made. Thus, that which we call character is formed. We refer to this privilege of choice as the agency of man."
-
By the spirit we can know all things - It does not go against what I have said and the scriptures agree -- See Mormon 10:5 "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
If G-d does a thing then we should also. I do not believe that the L-rd condemns and either do those that are borne of the spirit and one with G-d.
As I have posted (I won't post them again) several leaders have said that we can't know certain things and that is why we can't make that type of judgement even when a person is acting in righteousness and has the influence of the Holy Ghost and yet, as you say, we can know the truth of all things. Those are seemingly contradictory statements.
I think one way to make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements is to understand that knowing the truth of something does not necessarily mean knowing the details of why it is true. I may know that it is true that God lives, through the influence of the spirit but that does not mean that I know where He lives, I don't know the exact make up of his body, what are the elements of His body etc. Knowing the "truth" of all things, I don't think, equates to knowing all the facts surrounding a specific truth.
I can know that airplanes fly without knowing all the mechanics and physics of how it is possible etc. I can know that it is true that airplanes fly.
Or, how do you make sense of those seemingly contradictory statements? One is true and the other is not? Or, there must be some way that both statements are true.
D&C 64:10; " 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." Clearly our judgements are different than the Lord's, they are not the same. He will forgive whom He will based in His knowledge that we do not have. As we dont have all the knowledge we are asked to forgive all, which is the opposite of condemnation (that type of judgement).
-
There is another way to make sense of all this. That is; that we do not initiate judgment but rather listen to the spirit and let the spirit judge. We do not judge from our understanding but by the direction of the spirit. However, the process of listening to the spirit is another discussion with different parameters but not really any more difficult – unless one is not able to empirically understand and apply principles given (often in symbolism) by appointed proctors of the gospel (which is learned or applied through empirical application of covenants).
Yes, but that goes against what you were saying earlier that we can know those things.
And condemnation is the Lord's not ours, the spirit only gives what we need as well as what we are worthy of.
I agree with your last sentence. It is almost like the statement that we are given small stewardships so that we might be worthy of larger ones in the next life.
-
everything one has, that they have any control or capability to know and affect. The only thing that are truly ours is our will, and it will be how we use that in relation to what power we have that we will be held responsible for.
So, besides our will, there is no other characteristic that you would say is intrinsic to our spirits? How about if one is more faithful than another (I suppose that might be included in will)?
Or how about Alma 13; " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such."
The process of being "prepared" in the pre-mortal realm was just gifts? and not something developed by the person?
Gospel Principles says that we developed talents before coming here; "A veil covers our memories of our premortal life, but our Father in Heaven knows who we are and what we did before we came here. He has chosen the time and place for each of us to be born so we can learn the lessons we personally need and do the most good with our individual talents and personalities."
So, here, "our" individual talents and personalities is not really ours, as you say the only thing that is really ours is our will? How do you make that fit with what Gospel Principles is saying?
-
I have absolutely no training or education in archeology but when I read the Book of Mormon I see a story of a group of people who at first were on their own but then quickly mingled and intermixed with the people who were already there. The influence from the middle east that the first family of the Book of Mormon took with them really only remained with those that remained true to their religion. Over the course of hundreds of years, who remained close to the religion changed from culture to culture. In other words, the middle east influence was washed out pretty quickly and probably only was retained by the religious elite.
Even Mosiah had to translate the stone containing the history of the Jaredites which makes up the book of Ether. Meaning, those ancient roots were lost to the general people and probably would not be found by any archeological discovery amongst the common people.
We carry only 1.5% of the DNA from a great-great-great-great grandparent. Some say there are roughly 50 generations that pass per 1000 years. So how much DNA is left after 100 generations pass when only 5 generations ago only 1.5% of the DNA is carried through? DNA studies I think are useless in this regard unless one believes that the majority of people that remained where direct and only descendents of Lehi. I don't have the impression that everyone was descended from Lehi's family exclusively in the Book of Mormon even when they are called Nephites or Lamanites. I think they were mixed pretty quickly.
I know...I can't resist the snarkiness) then the no spirit thing flies in the face of scripture.
Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Human = body and spirit. I was seperating them out in an attempt to help all those reading that the feature that makes us limited and in a fallen state, as far as intelligence, is likely the body and not the spirit. The body, in this state, doesn't allow full expression of the spirit.
Knowing that we are both body and spirit, what percentage of our thoughts, actions, personality, manerisms, etc comes from the wiring of the brain vs the "wiring" (not sure if it is the same structure in a spirit body) of the spirit body? So, in other words, when we are talking "human" - the combination of the body and spirit, are we talking a 50%-50% representation or a 90-10 or what roughly? It is my belief that the spiritual input to our actions and thoughts and manerisms is small. Jesus, being the only begotten, may have approached more of a 50-50% balance between body and spirit. The body's input has to be more than 50% as we know that the natural man is an enemy to God. The default action of "humans" in general is to go away from the teachings of our Savior. So, evidence suggests that the natural man is more influential. For those that have a change from that set-up, they have a change of heart, they start to let the spirit have more and more control and then they become spiritually minded. Most "humans" are carnally minded. And therefore, even though you are trying to say that it is a comparison between "humans" and God, as "humans" are mostly carnal, then it is not too far off to suggest that you are saying the body is "stupid" compared to God. We have forgotten how smart our spirits our, we are behind the veil. Our spirits are Gods, eternal in nature and ones that have already passed the first estate test, showing faith in God's plan. That doesn't sound "stupid" to me. Naive or inexperienced or young would be better words than "stupid" even when refering to our spirits alone and not "humans".