[What is "given"?]

I'm simply talking potential. We all have the same potential given to us by God. We also have agency and are and were free to do with that potential as we will. Not all will have chosen the same. But the potential is freely given.

 

I'm not saying we were all the same or had the same growth there. I'm not even saying necessarily that we all were even capable of growth at the same rate. I'm definitely not saying any of us could have been the Christ. I'm saying that, ultimately, we all have the same potential, everyone equally. That is given by God.

Ok, thanks.   So, are you saying that is what is being referred to by the word "given" in D&C 82:3?

[What is "given"?]

God did give us all the exact same characteristics of Christ, but He also gave us agency. Every one of us has the same potential, and the some capabilities -- eternally speaking. Beyond that, I think it's guesswork.

Chapter 2 Gospel Principles; "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)."

 

Gospel Principles chapter 12:"There are several reasons why Jesus Christ was the only person who could be our Savior. One reason is that Heavenly Father chose Him to be the Savior. He was the Only Begotten Son of God and thus had power over death. Jesus explained: “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17–18)."

 

“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. … In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name” (Ether 3:14)

[What is "given"?]

My point is that it is all given. The false premise I mean to imply is that we "earned" any talents we have in life. From a broader perspective, we will all be equal in talents if we are obedient, and that too is given. Everything we have or will ever have is given. What is our property, even those things that we "own" rather than "steward" was still given.

So, where it says in Gospel Principles, I think it is chapter 2 if I remember right, we developed our talents before coming here, that was "given"? or developed?  Or are you just saying the opportunity to develop them was given?   Aren't our spirits eternal in nature and have certain innate characteristics?  If we had them forever, or we developed them, how are they "given"? 

 

What is implied by "given" is that they can also be taken away.  What makes up the nature of the spirit is, I think, innate and for the most part eternal and unchangeable with the exception of this probationary period in which we have been given a time to have a change. 

 

If the character of the spirit is "given" like you are saying, then why did God not make all of us (or give to all of us) the exact same characteristics Christ has? 

[What is "given"?]

This is a false premise. Developed or not, we are indebted to God for all we have, even that we supposedly "earn".

What is the false premise?  I am not following what you are saying is a false premise.  Indebtedness, I think might be your false premise, I wasn't talking about indebtedness or gratitude, like you said, I agree, that does not distinguish something given vs earned in this sense because the opportunity to earn was something given.  I think the discussion I was trying to stimulate was the concept of ownership vs stewardship and especially as it relates to "talents".   Both ownership and stewardship can generate indebtedness. 

 

If my neighbor loans me her bread maker, while I am using it I am grateful and then I give it back.  She could also, I suppose, give me a bread maker, then I would be grateful as well.  Whether there is gratitude or not does not help distinguish whether something is "given" or a stewardship. Even if I purchased her bread maker from her, I could still be grateful and indebted to her in that she let me buy it.

 

Are talents in this life traits that we were allowed to develop with Heavenly Father's help and therefore we are indebted to Him or are they temporary stewardships for this life that we did not necessarily develop before this life as implied by the parable of the ten talents (also which we would be indebted to our Heavenly Father for)? 

 

The reason to ask this question is, I think it is an important "game changer" doctrine to believe that a particular "talent" can be given (loaned, stewardship, etc) as opposed to the person developing it through their own efforts (plus opportunity and instruction given) and thus claiming it as a part of their spiritual character.  Because, then it raises the question of how is that given ... is it given by providing a body? (the bigger question - which I was going to wait to ask but now the cat is out of the bag).

 

There are certain circumstances where that might be more obvious, such as a person given a body in this life that has a strong stature and muscle make up and the hormonal drives (adrenaline etc.) to be a "natural" athelete.  i.e - would Shawn Bradley been a professional basketball player if he was only 6 feet tall?  Or is his aptitude and talent for basketball and blocking shots independent from his body, it is a spiritual talent? 

[What is "given"?]

In either/or questions... I usually end up answering "yes".

Meaning I suspect both.

Our spirits are who they/we are.

But it is also my understanding that a big part of why we come "here" is to learn both what we are capable of, enjoy, excel at, etc.

Doesn't mean that we always do, or always do to our fullest extent

Consider a boy born in 1253 who if he was born today would be the best computer programmer the world had ever seen.

Or the girl in rural Africa who will never see a piano but would outshine Beethoven, Bach, & Chopin if she were born in Kansas.

Some things, we simply don't have the ability to learn about ourselves in this life.

That doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that we won't learn them about ourselves in the next.

So for those 2.... They dot simply come here and learn nothing.

They learn and develope other parts of themselves, instead.

Perhaps that's even WHY they chose to be born in a time or place that is missing their X Factor.

So that they could learn & develop other skills & talents, already well aware of their gift in X area, they chose instead to explore other aspects of themselves. Or HF chose. I'm not "in" on those details.

So as to whether our talents are innate or acquired?

I think, at least in most cases, yes. To both.

Q

I have pondered this as well.  This is why I wonder if really what is "given" is more about what is not "given".

 

Like going on a hiking trip, you can only take so much in the pack.  One person might get the pots and pans, the other might be "given" the tent, etc.  What is given is less, in comparison, to what we had before but in that sense it is "given" or allowed, or carried through.  They were ours to begin with but allowed to carry through this life. Someone with dyslexia, for example, might call the ability to read without dyslexia a "talent". 

 

The opposite to that would be talents were given in this life that we didn't have in the previous life.  This would fit better with the word "steward". 

[What is "given"?]

There's a piano in pre-mortal existence?

 

Ok ok... just kidding.

Yeah, exactly!  or boxing, etc.

 

What about the "talented" ranger sniper?

[What is "given"?]

D&C 82; " 3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

 

What exactly is "given" in this life?  Consider the parable of the ten talents. The three servants were given different amounts of talents according to their ability.  The talents given were ones they did not have before although it was given according to their ability.

 

Some suggest that "talents" are intrinsic to the spirit of the individual, they came here with them.  In Gospel Principles is suggests that is the case (Chapter 2) that we developed talents before coming here.  If that is the case, then talents are not given, they are characteristics developed and earned.  Those would not qualify as a stewardship but ownership. If it is owned then it is not given.

 

If someone, for example, is a child prodigy piano player, is that a talent that was given in this life or was it developed in the previous life, a characteristic of that spirit? 

 

If someone is a prodigy boxer, was that a talent they developed in the previous life, or a talent given? 

 

What exactly is "given" and how does one distinguish that from something that was intrinsic to the spirit?

 

Along with that topic is the concept of stewardship. A steward, according to the Guide to the Scriptures on LDS.org is "A person who takes care of the affairs or property of another. That which a steward cares for is called a stewardship. All things on earth belong to the Lord; we are his stewards. We are accountable to the Lord, but we may report on our stewardship to God’s authorized representatives. When we receive a calling of service from the Lord or his authorized servants, that stewardship may include both spiritual and temporal affairs (D&C 29:34)."

 

So, what constitutes "our" property vs "things on earth" that belong to the Lord?

 

Are these "stewardships" permanantly part of our spiritual character or are they temporarily ours as a steward.  If any given aspect of ones character, talents or ability is not a stewardship, if it is intrinsic to the spirit, then it doesn't fall under the category of "where much is given, much is required".  Right?

 

If they are part of our character then why are they not called character (ownership) as opposed to stewardship?

 

How does one pick out traits that are intrinsic (owned) vs ones given (stewardship)? 

 

Possibly, they are all given, nothing is "owned" until they are inherited at the end of our test, like the parable of the ten talents.

[Addictions]

It's pretty complicated when it comes to diseases of the mind. When it comes to diseases of the body, it's pretty straight forward. If you get a hand cut off, it doesn't have anything to do with your spirit. But as a man thinketh, so is he...so...how does that work if a "disease" of the mind causes that man to think badly. Clearly if it's entirely physical --- literally a physical disease and nothing more, then it is unrelated to the persons spirit and thus unrelated to the person's accountability. But it isn't that straight forward when it comes to brain and thinking issues. They are, clearly, sometimes at least partially (and perhaps sometimes fully) caused by choice, habit, etc.

 

OCD is is a prime example. Is it sometimes a physical mental disorder? Yes. Is is sometimes just bad choices leading to further bad choices that lead to habits and messed up thinking? Yes. The physical result may be the same. The OCD person in one case may physically be the same as the other. But the core cause, and the choices that led or did not lead a person to become one way or another may have stemmed from very different things - one being accountable, the other not. (Incidentally, this is also my view of homosexuality and the choice/no choice issue).

 

I don't think we can or should be saying what is and is not spiritual and physical in black-and-white terms. To do so is judgment that only the Lord can make. We simply cannot know.

 

Incidentally SS, I think you're entirely misinterpreting Bednar and the meaning of having a dual nature. It does not mean that we have two natures that are distinct and separate. Our physical and our spiritual are one and the same. Being of a dual nature is no different than being, for example, of mixed race. Yes, both races are part of us. But they are not separate. We are a whole consisting of the different contributing factors..

David O. McKay; " Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual.

Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. ...

The question, then, is: Which will give the more abundant life—pampering our physical nature or developing our spiritual selves? Is not that the real problem? Indulgence in appetites and desires of the physical man satisfy but for the moment and may lead to unhappiness, misery, and possible degradation; spiritual achievements give “joy not to be repented of.”

 

President David O. McKay (1873–1970) taught that because of the Fall we have a dual nature: “One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.”

 

Elder Melvin J. Ballard (1873–1939) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that “all the assaults that the enemy of our souls will make to capture us will be through the flesh, because it is made up of the unredeemed earth, and he has power over the elements of the earth. The approach he makes to us will be through the lusts, the appetites, the ambitions of the flesh. All the help that comes to us from the Lord to aid us in this struggle will come to us through the spirit that dwells within this mortal body. So these two mighty forces are operating upon us through these two channels." ..."

“… If you would have a strong spirit which has dominance over the body, you must see to it that your spirit receives spiritual food and spiritual exercise. …

“The man or woman who is taking neither spiritual food nor spiritual exercise will presently become a spiritual weakling, and the flesh will be master. Whoever therefore is obtaining both spiritual food and exercise will be in control over this body and will keep it subject unto the will of God.”

 

Elder Ballard, President McKay, Elder Bednar, Paul etc. have stated it clearly that there is one and the other, the spirit and the body.  How can one dominate the other if they are the same? How can one master the other if they are the same? 

 

The "soul" is the combination of the two entities, the spirit and the body.  Our current body is corrupted and will turn to dust in the end, the spirit remains.  After this life we will receive a body in which the state you are describing will occur, where the body and spirit are one.  That is not our current state.  It is our goal and purpose to have them be one but that is not the condition of the probationary state. 

 

 

From the Doctrines of the Gospel teacher Manual Chapter 8 (teachings of the LDS church):"The term dual nature refers to our opposing qualities. On the one hand, we are spirit children of God, innocent when we come into the world and endowed with the potential to become divine (see Supporting Statements E on p. 21 of the student manual). On the other hand, we also have bodies of flesh and bones and are driven by physical urges and demands (see Supporting Statements E on p. 21 of the student manual). The Apostle Paul recognized the conflicting spiritual and physical aspects of man (see Romans 7:15–25; Galatians 5:16–17). Failure to master physical urges results in the emergence of what King Benjamin called the “natural man” (Mosiah 3:19)."

 

This is the picture that goes with that lesson;

 

[Addictions]

 

However I don't blame my body for things like that or things like: Pride, arrogance, ignorance, envy, selfishness, hautiness, vanity, wrongful anger, hostility, wrongful judging, lusting etc. These all come from Satan's deception and our own character flaws that need to be overcome in this world.

 

They are Satan's tools to bind us and possess us with. But it is our character flaws for these Satanic ordinances / attributes / tools that we succumb too. We have been conditioned and indoctrinated in this world (from our birth) that Satan dominates, that these are natural and human / normal feelings.

 

 When one breaks the worldly conditioning that has taken place in them, they will be able to see Satan's dominion of this world in a whole different light. God Bless!

I only blaim myself for choices that I make and that I have been given agency over.

 

The body is the medium in which Satan's temptations come to us.  Can they also come from evil spirits?  Sure.  But the majority of the day to day battle we face is the choice between carnal, bodily passions vs listening to the influences of the spirit.  Satan has been given dominion over the things of this world for a short time.  Our physical body is made from the dust of this world and therefore Satan has access to our spirits via our bodies. The mortal body has this characteristic.  The resurrected or perfected body will not. 

 

Christ fasted for 40 days to prepare for his ministry and to gain spiritual dominance over His body and when that was over Satan tempted him via bodily passions.  Christ had prepared Himself for that by not listening to the body drives for 40 days. 

 

Christ taught this principle of first follow spiritual influences over bodily ones; Matthew 6; "31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

 

We don't have to adopt the drives of the body because the body will do that for itself, it will "take thought for the things of itself", what shall we eat, drink etc. Our concern should be on the spiritual.  In other words, once a person thinks they can control the drives of the body that way, they can't.  We accept it as part of this life's experience and God will take care of it in the end. 

[Addictions]

Correction. Your understanding and quotes have all been from your understanding of LDS sources.

You are right, thanks for that correction.

[Addictions]

SS, is it your position that *no part* of addictions go with us into the eternal life?  Everyone keeps acting like that's your position, but I haven't really seen you come out and say it.  Can you please clarify?

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that general conference speakers were in the habit of trying to maintain worldly popularity.  Do you really think the Church fears BigPharma more than it fears BigMedia, BigPorn, BigFashion, BigPoliticalCorrectness, and so on?

 

Let's assume, for discussion's sake, that it does.  Let's assume that Elder Holland nevertheless wishes to help Church members who are suffering from what Babylon calls "mental illness".  Why would his discourse affirmatively and repeatedly encourage Church members to seek professional help?  Why does church policy also state "Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice."  Why would Elder Oaks, in another recent Conference talk specifically on priesthood healings, state:

 

 

And, what do you make of Elder Nelson's profession as a heart surgeon, which he maintained even after his ordination to the apostleship?  Under your logic, shouldn't he have just told the faithless Spencer W. Kimball to pray away his heart problem instead of performing surgery on the man?

 

The Church is not just fearfully, grudgingly silent about modern medical advances.  It openly praises them and adopts its members to avail themselves of them.  This notion that the Church would actually discourage medical treatments (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) but for its fear of Big Pharma, becomes increasingly unlikely when you consider the number of other powerful individuals, institutions, and social movements that somehow manage to get offended every time a GA opens his mouth.

Thanks for asking it that way.  My answer is of course, the part of the "addiction" that is of the spirit stays with a person. 

 

Again, I think the hard thing to grasp for most is that we are dual natured, represented by the body and the spirit.  They are not one in the same while in this life.  Elder Bednar explains this well in quotes already given.  If they are not the same is it possible that one of those natures has a drive that the other does not?  Yes, they are different, they are not one in the same.  When one has the simple idea that all thoughts, desires and passions are spiritual in nature then they cannot concieve how it is that it wouldn't continue that way in the next life.  The problem is in our inability to determine in any given individual what is the passion of the body vs the spirit. 

 

Can the spirit overcome all the passions of the body while in this life?  No.  Nobody is perfect.  It will be completely overcome for a person who remains humble, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, through Christ and upon that person's death and resurrection.  We can do better in controlling the passions of the body as we learn to be spiritually minded but the control is not 100%, I still get hungry on fast Sunday, the Apostles still fell asleep in the garden. 

 

If all one is calling "addictions" only the things that the spirit has taken in as it's own, the "desire of the heart", then yes that will continue.  I would challenge anyone who thinks they can judge in any given person what the desire of their heart is.  That is the danger of making a blanket statement that all "addictions" will continue onto the next life. A person can die with depression and yet their spirit is not depressed.  A person can die with a compulsion to gamble and yet their spirit does not want to gamble.  etc. In others, their depression turns to despair, the spirit takes in the depression as it's own.  In others the gambling becomes a love and the spirit takes it in as its own passion.  Just because it is done does not define whether the spirit has given into the passion or not in their heart.  

[Addictions]

Folk Prophet - Exactly! 

 

Snoozer, I might add that your understand is faulty and twists what was written out of context.  A general authority stood up in general conference and said that addictions go with you when you die.  It was published by the church and that makes it church doctrine  Bednar did not say that dual beings don't take their addictions with them. 

 

You are twisting things to suit your own agenda. 

I don't disagree with that statement.  All I am saying is, 'What is meant by "addictions" in that context?  

 

Hartmon Rector was refering to sin, which is to say when the spirit takes on those addictions from the body.  The problem is that people also use the word "addictions" for the recurrent, natural tendencies of the body.  There is a difference.  I think you are wrong to clump those together when looking at Hartmon Rector's statements. He was purely talking about spiritual addictions, the desires of the heart.   Is it possible to have an addiction for something that is not the "desire of the heart"?  Absolutely!!! I think you are having a hard time understanding that possibility.

 

Is OCD a spiritual flaw?  If not, where are those compulsions and obsesions coming from? 

 

You want me to believe that every passion of the body whether it was subdued and mastered or not stays with us in the next life?  That would be a twist of the truth.  If a person remains with a broken heart and a contrite spirit she will gain rest from that struggle in the next life, it will not continue.  The battle will end.

 

If a person is a recovered alcoholic, they never drink an ounce of alcohol again in their life and yet when they walk by a bar there still is a drive, a passion, an urge to drink but they do not indulge that "physical addiction", they control it.  You would have me believe that despite them never acting on that physical addiction, an addiction is an addiction so it will carry with them into the next life?  Boloney. 

 

If a person has depression and their body says "sleep" all the time.   They do everything they can to overcome that physical drive, it doesn't matter?  That drive will continue with them into the next life?  Boloney!!

 

Even in the best of people, the body is not made perfect in this life.  I hate to break the news to you but this is true.  All of those imperfections do not necessarily continue on through the next life unless the spirit takes them in as self. 

 

We start out carnal in nature, the body rules the spirit.  When the spirit begins to rule the body, that is called "born again".  There is a change, as Alma describes, from the carnal nature to this spiritual nature.  That occurs when the spirit is winning the struggle between the carnal nature of the body vs spiritual drives of the spirit.  Yes, the body can become sanctified over time and there are less and less "carnal" drives when that occurs but within this life hardly anybody perfects the body to that point that all the carnal drives are gone. 

 

Mossiah 27; "25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

 26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

 

If there is no change, we all remain in our natural state, we remain with the drives of the body, carnal and fallen. President Ezra Taft Benson stated it this way: “In addition to the physical ordinance of baptism and the laying on of hands, one must be spiritually born again to gain exaltation and eternal life."  The way that we overcome this world is through Christ (not by getting rid of addictions of the body) ; 3 Nephi; " 20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not."  That is the spiritual rebirth that will allow a person to overcome the world and all of its corruption including the passions of the body, through Christ.

[Addictions]

Snoozer-

 

You really do need to do a bit of research before you start spouting the wisdom of the world.  This took me no more than 10 minutes of searching to find the following talk by Hartman Rector, Jr.

 

Your college degrees have made you believe in the wisdom of the world.  You need filter what you learn through the spirit of discernment and weed out the garbage and wisdom of the world.

My understanding and quotes I have provided have all been from LDS sources, not my own understanding.

 

His talk is about when the addiction becomes sin.  Let me paraphrase and summarize what Hartmon Rector is saying; Sin is when the spirit also becomes addicted.  Note his words; "it is not just the physical body that is addicted..."  Which is exactly what I have been saying.  The problem is when the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body.  The body's "addiction" is not an issue.  It is only when the spirit that can make choices also becomes "addicted", that is the thing that is taken with us to the next world.  If it is "just" in the body then it is not sin and it is not a problem.  The body will do what it does.  Our test is a spiritual one, whether the spirit will take on the passions of the body or not.  I think you need to learn through the spirit of discernment and weed out the garbage of the wisdom of the world.  The phrase that you selectively cut off from the quote you gave right before the start of your selection reads "Resurrection is a process whereby after death the spirit returns and reunites with the body and they become again a living, immortal soul, immortal meaning not subject to death or separation. I believe it is primarily the spirit that sees, hears, feels, knows passion and desire;... "  Therefore he is only refering to the things that are carried with us to the next life.  He is not refering to the things that turn to dust upon death.  The important thoughts, passions, sights, sounds, desires etc. are the ones that are internalized to the spirit as that is who we really are and will carry through to the next life. I totally agree with Hartmon Rector when he says the struggle that we deal with is the spirit, because that is what we will carry with us and that is what we will be judged by, not the addictions of the body.  Remember he said it is not "just" the body that is addicted (when there is sin).  Read further on in the talk, he is talking about sin only.   Sin is when the spirit makes a choice.  There are passions from the body, i.e. - sexual drives, hunger, striving for power and control, domination, anger etc.  The sin is when the spirit adopts those as her own.  I agree with Hartmon Rector in that discussion.

 

Go ahead and quote a talk from 1970 and I will give you one from April 2013, Elder Bednar so that you have further understanding of this discussion beyond the general discussion available in 1970; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."

 

"We are here to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."  Elder Nelson 1985 (15 years after your quote); "If our faith be united in prayer that we may be edified together, I should like to speak about our quest for self-mastery. In so doing, I would converse as a loving father counseling one of my own children.

Before you can master yourself, my precious one, you need to know who you are. You consist of two parts—your physical body, and your spirit which lives within your body. You may have heard the expression “mind over matter.” That’s what I would like to talk about—but phrase it a little differently: “spirit over body.” That is self-mastery."

 

President Eyring 2008; "We all were taught by Elohim, the Father of our spirits. We loved Him and wanted to be like Him and to be with Him forever. He told us plainly what it would require for us to have that joy. We would have to receive a physical body, with all of the trials that would bring. We would be subject to illness and have within our bodies the processes which would finally lead to death. And our bodies would have in them powerful cravings for physical satisfaction."

 

Part of the discord I think comes from having different definitions of "addiction",  "Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (gambling) that can be pleasurable but the continued use of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work or relationships, or health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.

The word addiction is used in several different ways. One definition describes physical addiction. This is a biological state in which the body adapts to the presence of a drug so that drug no longer has the same effect; this is known as tolerance. Because of tolerance, there is a biological reaction when the drug is withdrawn. Another form of physical addiction is the phenomenon of overreaction by the brain to drugs (or to cues associated with the drugs). An alcoholic walking into a bar, for instance, will feel an extra pull to have a drink because of these cues."

 

There is the "pull" from the body, then there is the choice made by the spirit.  At what point the line is crossed, the point at which the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body and it becomes a spiritual choice, God will judge that in any given person.  You and I cannot judge that, we cannot see the inner man like God can.   It is not 100% of the time a choice made by the spirit.  As even Hartmon Rector, Jr says "sometimes" it is. You and I cannot judge that in any given person.

[Did women ever hold the Priesthood?]

I mostly agree here--though I think there's a fair amount of guessing going on and we don't really understand these things at all. But it argues for the point that women will never need the priesthood, because they can experience the blessings of it vicariously. It also argues (going back to an old thread debate with you) for the potential of polygamy, in that one celestial sister-wife would vicariously share in the joy of all her celestial sister-wives joy in progeny. I believe you argued before that celestial polygamy could not be fair because the husband's progeny would be greater than the wife's. According to this vicarious sharing theory, that would not be true.

Thanks for your comments.  This is a tangent from this thread but the sharing of experience between husband and wife has to be 100%.  I would have a hard time seeing it any other way.  That is what is difficult about the polygamy idea is that the husband would be partitioning off some aspect of his glory from one wife that belongs with his relationship to another.  And if everything is 100% shared then essentially one wife is married to the other, which we don't believe in that kind of relationship.  The whole idea that there is some kind of relationship called "sister-wife" is the problem.  The wives are not married to each other!  Polygamy creates this unnecessary relationship called "sister-wives".  Why would there be any special relationship that woman would have with a fellow wife compared to their relationship to a woman who was married to some other man.  If there is value to the so-called "sister-wife" relationship then men would be missing out on the synonymous "brother-husband" relationship.  There is no such thing as a "sister-wife" relationship described in the gospel. 

 

If the relationships are separate then there is not 100% sharing on the husbands part and if they are shared then this creates this bizarre relationship called "sister-wives".

 

D&C; "22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."

[Addictions]

You are making much to do about nothing.  If you are driving a car and apply the breaks and instead of breaking the car horn honks - then yes the resulting accident is a faulty car.  I am sorry you have such hatred of you body.  Though my body is rather old - it has served me well and brought a great deal of joy, made a decent living for me and my family. 

 

True that under unusual and critical stress - while serving in the military and having not sleep for 72 hours my body shut down at a rather critical time and I was our for over 24 hours and could not be awakened.  After 40 years of marriage my heart still skips a beat when my wife whispers she loves me.  Sadly on my bicycle rides I get passed by other cyclists much more often than I pass somebody anymore but I still enjoy drafting on flats and cranking up a 13% grade. 

 

I have ran into others that like you hate their bodies and can't wait to be rid of it.  I do not know why you got such a faulty one but my suggestion is to quit complaining about it, take supper good care of it - and make the best of it you can.  Try a different view - like your body is a sacred temple to be taken care of - may help.  It helps me  :)   I would also suggest that if you think you are the natural enemy of G-d as long as you have a body that there is more of a problem than just your body.  It may change if you change your view a little to be thankful for your body that G-d gives you that is in his image and likeness.  Spread cheer and happiness by smiling and while you use your body to serve others.

It is sad that what you are claiming comes from the body is actually spirituality.  The opportunity comes from having a body and in that thing it is positive but the lesson learned is a spiritual matter. The positive things achieved and accomplished and experienced come from listening to your spiritual influences. 

 

I am not sure why you think I "hate" my body or complain about it.  I have never said such a thing.

 

I am not my body.  I am a child of God.  My body is a temple and I treat it as such.  I played several years of college level soccer, I play several instruments, I have received degrees of higher education and I have given birth to 4 beautiful children.  I have worked in the medical field for several decades and am exposed to the effects of a faulty body almost daily, realizing the faults of the body have nothin to do with the character of the child of God spirit that inhabits such a body.

 

If anything I have expressed an appreciation for the natural dangers inherit to the body but not hatred.  Just like the power of the ocean, the body does what it was designed to do.  If it is appreciated and respected then it can be a positive experience.  The appreciation and respect and use of the body in a proper maner is a spiritual act, not a physical one. Those animal passions and desires can be bridled if there is sufficient effort placed into doing so.  If not, it remains wild and does what it was designed to do while in this world, be an enemy to God.  Everyone's body is different in its relative influence and effect it has over the spirit.

 

If anything, I have an appreciation for how far we have fallen as spirit beings of our Heavenly Father to this current existence. How do you compare your current abilities to one that has spent eons in the presense of Heavenly Father and matured fully?  You would like to think that it is similar, that your spirit has similar capacity and ability while here as it did in the previous life and compared to the life to come.  How far did we Fall?   In other words, compared to your previous personality, traits and abilities, how does your current "self" compare to that?  My statements are similar to what Moses learned about our current condition.  When Moses said that "we are nothing", was he "complaining" too, or did he just have eternal perspective? I am sure your perception of his statement is the same.

 

To really ponder this issue, draw two lines with spirit on one end and body on the other;

 

Spirit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Body

Spirit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Body

 

On the top line circle the influence that each had while in the pre-mortal world (the circle should be over the word Spirit as we were 100% spirit).  Now, in comparison to that set of characteristics, on the next line, where do you think we currently are?  I know you would like to think that our traits are closer to the spirit side then they are the body but they are not.  We have fallen far, not little.  Wherever you put that mark on the second line reflects how far you think we are different from our pre-mortal self.  Speaking for myself, I can tell you that my current characteristics, traits and abilities are no where close to what I would perceive a spirit child of God who has spent eons with Heavenly Father reaching maturity, learning all there is to learn from a secular stand point from our Heavenly Father compared to now.  For me, the mark on the second line would be very close to the body even when I consider myself a spiritually minded individual and strive to do what is right, the spirit is willing but the body is weak.

 

Does Elder Bednar hate the body when he says; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies." ?

 

Listen carefully to the prophet David O. McKay; "It’s open to you—two ways are open. One leading to the spirit, the testimony of the spirit that is in harmony with the spirit of creation, the Holy Ghost. The spirit of the Lord animates and enlivens every spirit, in the church or out of it. ... Men who are not within that radiation can’t hear it, but you hear it, you hear that voice and you are entitled to that voice and the guidance of it and it will come to you if you do your part. But if you yield to your own instincts, your own desires, your own passions, and pride yourself into thinking and planning and scheming, and think you are getting away with it, things will become dark. You have accomplished your gratification and passion and appetite, but you deny the spirit; you cut off the communication between your spirit and the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

When God becomes the center of our being, we become conscious of a new aim in life—spiritual attainment. Physical possessions are no longer the chief goal in life. To indulge, nourish, and delight the body as any animal may do is no longer the chief end of mortal existence. God is not viewed from the standpoint of what we may get from him, but rather from what we may give him.

Only in the complete surrender of our inner life may we rise above the selfish, sordid pull of nature. What the spirit is to the body, God is to the spirit. When the spirit leaves the body, it is lifeless, and when we eliminate God from our lives, spirituality languishes. …

… Let us resolve that from now on we are going to be men and women of higher and more sterling character, more conscious of our weaknesses, more kind and charitable toward the failings of others. Let us resolve that we shall practice more self-control in our homes; that we shall control our tempers, our feelings, and our tongues that they may not wander beyond the bounds of right and purity; that we shall do more seeking to develop the spiritual side of our lives, and realize how dependent we are upon God for success in this life."

 

When we follow the body's passions we cut off the communication from the Holy Ghost to our spirit - take it or leave it, from the prophet of God. As he counsels; "be conscious of our weaknesses".  You would prefer to chastise me for doing what the prophet states.   You would probably state that Moses was complaining when he said that man was nothing or think that Paul was complaining when he stated that our spirits are alive in Christ but we make our bodies dead.

[Addictions]

I disagree with your premise as well as your conclusion.  Bridling one's passions is not in any way the same as not having any passions.  In the engineering world it is using a lesser force through a tool to control a greater force.  The bridle in a horse's mouth in intended such that by applying just a little force in the horse's mouth we are able to control the greater force than ourselves of the horse.  We use the same principle with power steering in cars and even breaks on a wide variety of vehicles. 

 

A bridal is not intended to do away with the force of the horse likewise the gas peddle in your car is not to keep the engine from contributing its power but rather allows the driver to intelligently use the force for benefit.  The power of horses and car is not what is evil - it is all in the spirit of the operator that abuses the power that they are given.  Blaming a car for hitting a wall and declaring the driver pure goodness; that sometimes a faulty car may have some merit under some very uncommon certain cases - but then to demand that is always the case whenever a car hits a wall - well I think that you do not really know very much about drivers or cars.  Or as a driver of a car - I really do not have any responsibility as to what the car I am driving does - it is the car's fault????

Why do you have to have someone or something to blame?  Have you not heard of dying from natural causes.  If lightning strikes a person and kills them, who are you going to blame? The lightning?  The lightning killed and yet there is nothing to lay blame on.  How can that be?  In your world everything has to be caused by something or someone in charge.  It doesn't!  This is a fallen world, a corrupt world.  That is what happens in a corrupt world.  There are acts of "nature" that kill, harm and destroy.  If one dies from a virus, does the virus get punished, do we blame the virus?  If I pass onto my daughter a gene that kills her at a young age, who is to blame?  Why would you be troubled by blaming certain things on act of "nature" and yet extra-corpeal things one would have no trouble blaming the act on nothing, it is just "nature".  Our physical body is natural, it is nature, by definition.  

 

A car and a driver is a poor example because the car has no ability to drive or direct itself and act for itself.  A horse and bridal is a little better example.  If the horse is not under control and stomps on someone and kills them, whose fault is it?   It depends, was the horse trained well enough?  Did the rider do something wrong?  Did the rider direct the horse to stomp on someone?  Has the rider been trained well enough to know what to do?  Is the horse wild?  All those variables as it pertains to the body and spirit, God knows and can judge. The inability to comprehend this situation comes from such a strong belief that the body does not generate any passions or desires of itself.  If you want to say that the body has no natural instincts in and of itself, that it cannot generate spontaneous thoughts or passions then fine, use the example of the car and driver.  But then you are ignoring the teachings of the prophets that tell us otherwise, that we are a dual being with two natures.

 

But why are you trying to say that I am claiming where the fault should be placed?  The discussion was never about who or what should be blammed.  Only that it is possible, view the many examples I have given, in which we would agree that the spirit is not responsible for the actions of the body.   If my 90 year old grandmother who has Alzheimers gets up in church and claims that she wishes she could have Joseph Smith's baby, is that a sin?   Was that the injured brain making that statement or my grandmother's spirit?  Could that only come out that way if it has to be generated by the spirit alone? 

 

What if someone was slipped a drug in their drink at a party and because of the drug they slept with someone and became pregnant out of wedlock, there was no evidence that the woman had fought off the advances of the person. Who's sin was that?  The woman had sex out of wedlock - is that not a sin?  How could the body have acted without the spirit directing it?  If only the spirit directs action then that person became pregnant under the direction of the spirit. There is no dilemna if one understands that the body can act on its own, it has its own default nature. There are some things that are acts of nature. 

 

When my body kills off bacteria in my stomach, do I need to repent of the millions of deaths I have caused of God's creation?  I am sure, everyone would say that is ridiculous.  But in your world, your spirit is ultimately responsible for every act of the body.  At this very moment your body is killing and killing, over and over again.  At least be assured that I wouldn't blame your spirit for such evil acts. Did the Apostles sin or not when they fell asleep in the Garden?  Was it because their spirit was not willing?  Even when their spirit was willing it still happened.  So what is controlling what?  I think you should rethink who is driving what. 

 

A better metaphor might be a plane directed by a pilot and a co-pilot who oppose each other.  They both have their hands on the controls.  If the pilot lets go the co-pilot takes over.  If the spirit is not sought then the natural drive takes over (the co-pilot) but the natural man is an enemy to God.

[Addictions]

@Just_A_Guy

 

Aussie wasn't being harsh at all.  Addiction has two facets, but as I pointed out earlier, everything starts in the mind.  Remember that chemical addiction has two components: physical and psychological.  It's the psychological part that is mental and everything mental goes with us.  Everything single thing we ever thought or felt goes with us.  Your feelings and desires go with you, so if you have an uncontrollable urge to tweak, you'll still have that urge. 

 

Reread what was posted by Aussie.  We don't lose our desires for good or bad when we die.  That is church doctrine.  It isn't much simpler than that.

That is a church doctrine but that is in reference to what the spirit desires, we commonly call that "desires of the heart".  Where you are wrong is that not everything that is "mental" is spiritual. We are dual natured.  One nature from the body (the brain) the other from the spirit, while in this life. It is what is taken in by the spirit that will be carried onto the next life.  All the good and bad desires of the heart is what is carried through.  The mistake though, is to think that all desires are from the spirit alone. 

 

When you want to fast on fast Sunday but you get hungry which desire is from where.  If you want to say it is all from the spirit as it all "originates" in the mind, then you would have to say that the person who becomes hungry during fast Sunday does not really have the desire to fast and therefore their fast is not done with true intentions.  They want to fast but they really don't.  That is fixed by understanding that passions come from two sources, the body (the brain and all of its connections and hormonal influence etc) and the spirit (which is quiet and hard to detect in this life and defaults to the back seat in most people).  The spirit is willing but the body is weak.   The body is weak, meaning it can't follow through with the spirit's direction.

 

If you had a dream one night that you killed someone, do you have to repent?  Or a dream that you cheated on your spouse, do you have to repent?  If you had a dream that you cheated on your spouse and then you died while in your sleep, does that "feeling", that mental thought, go with you to the next life?

[Addictions]

My first point:

 

I think you opposition to my first point is not explained by you post.  I am trying to understand why you think there is - in the final scheme of things - reason to believe having the experience of a body of flesh a bad thing with no hope of ever having eternal value from the experience.  I am inclined to believe you miss read and misunderstood my first point.  But perhaps I have not understood you opposition to such a thought and that you really believe a body of flesh and bones is an evil curse from which the aggregate result is unconditionally and inevitability bad.

I played soccer in college.  We often would have a practice game with a team from another division before our "real" game later in the week.  The benefit from that game is to make sure we are working together as a team and we can identify our weaknesses before facing our real opponent.  We took it as a learning experience.  Even though it was a learning experience to have this practice game we still didn't want the practice game opponent to win.  We tried to win the practice game as we would any game.  It would be silly to say, "lets let the practice team win because we are trying to learn from them".  I may even learn something from the opposing team that I could make my own, "I liked how they played that set piece, lets see if we can do the same thing."

 

Also, from that practice game, our coach was able to see who was ready to play in the real game later that week. Even if we lost the practice game, the benefits are the same; we identified weaknesses and the coach can see who is ready to play in the real game.  The actual score of the game is not so important as the real purpose of the game.  Whether the body is ahead in that struggle between body and spirit is not as important as whether we learn from the experience and that God can use that struggle as a test to understand our true desires -  to be carnally minded vs spiritually minded.

 

We can learn from this stewardship that we have with the mortal body without giving into it. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.  I can oppose the body and by doing so learn from it.  The aggregrate result of not taking in carnal traits is a positive thing. To bridle the passions of the body, to become master over it, is a positive thing. I don't have to let the body take a natural course to let it be a positive experience.  There is a positive result in opposing its natural tendencies.  There may be traits that I want to take in as my own, such as empathy and the desire for family. They are not mine until my spirit recognizes my weakness or deficiency and learns to like that thing, then I can take that trait from the body and desire it without desiring all the ones that are defined as the "enemy to God".

[Addictions]

I was just scanning through this thread and got knocked off my chair by this statement.

1) No. No it isn't. Tourette's and other neurological disorders are NOT caused by unclean spirits or any other kind of possession, demon or otherwise. They're physiological disorders. Just like any other physiological disorder.

2) To continue to pick on Tourette's for a moment... There is NOTHING inherently wrong, evil, or unclean with Tourette's! Ya wanna start talking badly about psychopathy, then I might be tempted to get on board for even a moment, but Tourette's??? It's just a series of tics, that while distracting and frustrating at times for sure, but in no way predicts anything about the person themselves who has it. No more than a sprained ankle predicts a limp. People with Tourette's can be phenomenally holy, totally normal like most of us, or complete jerks. Their disorder has nothing to do with their personality, who they are, or how they think or choose to act.

Q

I agree with everything you are saying here and how you put it but (for everyone else reading these statements) understand there is a difference between how a person "chooses to act" and the actual action.  In this case, does the spirit initiate the motor or vocal tic or does the body?  This is why Tourrette's is such a good example of this concept.  Most would agree it is not something evil or good chosen by the spirit, it is just what the body does in that condition.

 

Just like there was a difference between the Apostles desire to stay and watch and pray vs falling asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane.  A small percentage of people that have Tourette's have coprolalia, a vocal tic in which there is compulsive profanity.  Even though the profanity is expressed, I agree that that could be different than what is the true personality of that person, like you said, it has nothing to do with their personality.  And the way to appreciate that is to fully understand that their are traits of the body and their are traits of the spirit and the spirit doesn't always win out in that battle and that is true for all of us to some degree. Only God really knows the situations and circumstances that are insurmountable just like not telling the Apostles that they sinned because they could not stay awake in the garden.

[Addictions]

Snoozer-

 

Well, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but what you are preaching is nothing more than the wisdom of the world mingled with scripture.  We take our personality with us when we die.  ALL of our personality, including all our bad habits, character flaws, faults and addictions, in addition to our good qualities.  What you are preaching sounds more like the "eat, drink and be merry" and if we are guilty, "God will beat us with a few stripes" crowd.

 

Our personality is eternal.  We brought it with us from the premortal world.  In 1912, the First Presidency made the following statement:

"The written standards of scripture show that all people who come to this earth and are born in mortality, had a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father." (Improvement Era, Mar 1912, Pg. 417)

 

Elder Russell M. Nelson stated:

"Important as is the body, it serves as a tabernacle for one's eternal spirit.  Our spirits existed in the premortal realm and will continue to live after the body dies.  The spirit provides the body with animation and personality. ("Thanks Be to God," Ensign, May 2012)

 

We develop our personality on this earth through our experiences, what we do, what we think, say and how we react to the consequences of our actions, both good and bad.  When we die, we are the exact same person in the postmortal world. 

 

In 1918, Elder Anthony W. Ivins gave a conference talk specifically addressing this subject.

"...the personality of the individual persists after death, otherwise how could he be responsible for the deeds done in the body?  The two outstanding attributes of God are justice and mercy.  How can I in justice be held responsible for the transgressions of another or rewarded for his righteousness?  No; I must answer for myself, just as you must answer for yourself; so my personality must persist, I must be the same man, my future life inseparably connected with this life.  (Conference Reports, Apr. 1918, Pg. 85)

 

From the church publication, "Preach My Gospel," pg. 52:

"Death does not change our personality or our desires for good or evil.  Those who chose to obey God in this life live in a state of happiness, peace, and rest from troubles and care.  Those who chose not to obey in this life and did not repent live in a state of unhappiness."

 

From another church publication, "Introduction to Family History, Student Manual 2012," Pg. 8:

"Death will not change your personality or your desire for good or evil.  If you choose to follow Jesus Christ during your life on Earth, you will be at peace in the spirit world.  Those who choose not to follow Christ and do not repent will be unhappy."

 

You are twisting the things you've quoted to suit your own beliefs without researching further to understand what the prophets truly mean.  You seem to think it is the corrupted body that causes us to become addicted or have character flaws.  This couldn't be farther from the truth. 

I don't disagree with anything you have posted here, so no bubble burst.  The only thing I am saying is that we have a hard time distinguishing what is the personality of the spirit and what are the traits of the corrupted body.  In some cases it might be more obvious but in most it is difficult to distinguish.

 

For example, if a person with Tourette's yells out an explicative almost every time they hear the word "Jesus", is that their personality or their body?  If someone with severe depression or anxiety says "I can't go to church today", is that their spirit or their body's personality coming out?   When the apostles wanted to stay awake and watch in the Garden of Gethsemane but didn't was that because their spirits had that personality, to fall asleep in those situations or was it the trait of the body?  We are told what it was - the spirit is willing but the body is weak.  If the spirit is willing but the body is weak and like you are trying to say that the only thing that drives personality (how we act) is the spirit, then the apostles commited sin while in the Garden of Gesthemane and the person with Tourrette's yelling out explicatives commits sin everytime she does that and the people that stay home from church because of some overwhelming mental disorder are commiting sin, in your book. 

 

How is it that those things are not sins?  Because there are thoughts, drives and passions that are generated by the body and then their are personality traits that are driven by the spirit.

 

How much of what you do comes from the spirit vs the body?  Consider this, as a spirit we were in the presence of God for ages, for eons and we matured to a full grown adult spirit with all of her traits and characteristics developed.  If we are full grown spirits and adults as we enter into this life, then why can't we remember our spiritual characteristics and act like our adult self the moment we are born in this world?  Why can't we have an adult, intelligent conversation at day number one of life, a conversation like one who has spent ages with the Father to the point of maturity?  You may say "because of the veil".  Then I would say "Bingo!!!!!!"   That is exactly how much your spirit's personality comes out from behind the veil.

 

We are told that we have a hard time seeing the inner man.  I know I do.  Why is that?  because it is not expressed in every day life and unless one is highly in tune with the spirit and looking at someone on a spiritual level, ignoring the outer man, then all one sees is the outer man (the body, the brain and the personality of that half of our dual natured being).

 

The prophets have taught that we have dual natures that oppose each other.  You can choose to believe that or not.  But I believe the prophets that we have dual natures.  What is meant by "nature"?   It means tendencies, behaviors, personality traits.  We have two sets of those while in this life!!!!  But, you are right, only one of those is eternal in nature.  And I have said that all along.  That is why we don't want to fall in love with the nature that turns to dust, don't put your heart in treasures that turn to dust.  The trick is figuring out which traits are those. 

 

I will give you a contemporary example of this, people that have same sex attraction.  The test is failed when the person says things like "I was born this way".  This may be true, but that is the test.  Does one struggle to find their spiritual identity or take the "natural" course and give into the natural man, the natural passions of the body?  We are told that we have gender in the pre-mortal life?  If all that comes out in this life is the personality of the spirit then you are going to have to explain how and why God put that certain gender orientation into the wrong body.   I understand that struggle because it is the same for all of us but for various traits.  Our spirit's personality does not match up with our body's while in this life.  There is opposition in that, for all of us.  Once one understands this important set up for this life, then one can better understand the true nature of self and all those around you and love them for who they truly are as opposed to their outer man.

 

How is it that Jesus can say 'forgive them for they know not what they do'?   How can they do anything that they don't know what they are doing?  Because there is a difference between spirit self and what the body does.

 

If you have a dream of infedelity, then according to you, that would be a sin because as a man thinketh that is what is in the heart. Right, that is what you believe as the only source of thought and personality for you is the spirit?  I understand that is not a sin because the body (the brain) can make up passions, thoughts and desires that do not come from the spirit.  Now, if the spirit takes that in and makes it her own, then that is sin.

[Did women ever hold the Priesthood?]

You will inherit the Father's gender?    or do you believe he does not have or possess gender?

You know I am not saying that.

 

God's plan for us is the same plan that He followed, that of eternal marriage and the family unit.  My family unit can have all that God's has.  Within that unit, His gender is possessed. 

 

Like what was mentioned, if God being male does not bear children, how can he know all and understand and even receive the joy from child bearing?  However you want to answer that question would be the same response to how a woman could possess all that the Father has.

 

We believe in the divine ability to share experience.  That is the basis of Christ' atonement. Don't you think that power, of vicarious experience sharing will be given to all those in the Celestial Kingdom.  I think that is why one of the requirements to enter in the Celestial Kingdom is to love thy neighbor as thy self.  If one has that power to the nth degree then it will be as if they are doing the thing their self.  My husband's acts will be mine as will my acts be his.  We beleive in the divine power of vicarious experience. Propietary experience is Satan's desire, to be self focused only, with which a Savior would not be accepted.   

[Did women ever hold the Priesthood?]

We've acknowledged that God has given it. Since the camel's nose is already in the tent, why don't we just invite him in and make it official? I'm hearing that those with keys can (and admittedly, it may currently be keys the prophet has decided to hold for himself rather than delegating down) authorize women to perform any priesthood function - short of holding keys themselves. What's preventing president(s) from "turning the key" in behalf of women for a broader ministry?

I can answer that, somewhat.  From an LDS woman's standpoint, I see that the basic unit of organization for God is the family unit.  From the Garden of Eden on, God has always established his order based in the family unit.  It will be the same in the next life.  Whatever my husband has, if he and I both make it to the Celestial Kingdom, will be mine too.  We will share those burdens and I will help him with his roles and he with mine.  This is the basic unit of organization with God. The basic unit of organization is not the individual.  Satan wanted that.  He wanted to be recognized in and of himself without anybody else to attribute his glory to.  He couldn't stand the idea of saying that his glory was given to him by someone else.

 

Exaltation itself is based in that family unit.  The pathway to exaltation would not deviate from that or provide opportunity to receive all the blessings in some secondary fashion. 

 

Why is the family unit the basic unit of organization for God?  that is a question for another thread.

[Addictions]

I am going out on a bit of a limb with the very intent that someone poke logical holes if they can and will.  I would say theological holes but theology is so broad and often seem to me that theology sometimes lacks intelligence.  Yes - I know I have prejudices but please try not to make that the focus - rather lets discuss the related topic and see what we can learn together.

 

Sometimes I think that the things of the flesh get a bad and unnecessary rap because of wording coming from translations and various attempts at logic based more in defending a point of view or rationalizing a misconception rather than trying to understand what is going on.

 

My first point is that the opportunity to have a body of flesh is a blessing and overall a good thing.  The initial term carnal simple means the needs of the flesh.  Things that the flesh desires beyond needs are not really carnal.  We can call them desires of the flesh but in essence we are talking about a counterfeit or manufactured need that is not necessarily something actually a need of the flesh.  Many extend carnal to things beyond needs but the term "of the flesh" does not of necessity mean evil or corrupt.  Eating is a carnal need of the flesh - and the resurrected Christ ate - which mean he participated in a carnal act of the flesh as a completely glorified resurrected being. 

 

Second point is sensual.  For the most part those that are concerned with the sensual seem to me to over cook this concept as well.  The root meaning of sensual simply means the experience of the five senses - which are sight, hearing, tasting, smelling and feeling.  If anyone is looking forward to not being sensual in the resurrection (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and feeling) please communicate to me what you think a resurrected being would do with out physical senses?

 

To me this physical experience is like a fire.  A fire can be useful if it is kept under control.  If we keep fire bounded under our control it give us comfort, protection, power and a great many other wonderful and beneficial things.  But if we let fire out of control it will become our worse enemy.  The warning of fire is not to play with it and to not respect it or it will not serve us.  Likewise we are warned of the flesh and the carnal nature of a physical body.  The warning is not to play with it and that we must respect it or it - like fire will not serve us.

 

Final point - I am having great difficulty understanding why anyone thinks that our mortal experience will not affect us spiritually.  Really?  The traditional religious thinking is that our mortal physical experience will end our spirits in ether heaven or hell for eternity.  The LDS doctrine is that our mortal physical experience will land us in the Celestial Kingdom or something less. And what is a physical addiction if it is not the physical out of control? 

 

I have suggested that any less than perfect physical condition we experience in this mortal existence we can repent of and be rid of in the resurrection.  Seminary has suggested that anything that we have been involved in that is not the desire of our heart we can repent of and be rid of.  I am not really in love with her terminology because I think it is incomplete - but I can live with it to agree on the most important point.  Which is that we repent of our physical weaknesses that we do not want to take with us in eternity.  This is because of the atonement of Christ.  But I am quite sure that without repentance we will take with us what ever physical habits, strange desires, sicknesses or disabilities we learn desire more than complete perfection.

 

I strongly suggest that we learn to dearly love disciplining our physical bodies and enjoying the good feelings and other good things that a body of flesh has to offer.

Your first point is absolutely not true!  (haven't time to go through the rest of it yet)  If someone has anxiety for example, there are manufactured "needs" from the body for things that the body doesn't really need.  The brain constantly misinterprets, anticipates and imagines all sorts of desires and passions that are not necessarily needed.  If a man is attracted to another woman other than his wife, is that a need?  Boloney!  That is not a need.

 

If my husband's eye is caught by a woman walking by who is attractive and flaunting her body but then he turns his head and doesn't act on that immediate impulse then I am proud.  I am not mad.  I realize that his body's passions and drives leads to the reflex of being attracted to a beautiful woman and that doesn't mean his spirit is desiring to be with another woman.  If he, however, continues to look at her then I would be mad as that would suggest that he either doesn't have control of his body or that his spirit is desirous of that passion and wants to pursue the carnal passion.  There is a difference between the passions of the body and what the spirit, when in control, does in reaction to those passions.  There is a battle, what wins out reveals if a person is carnally minded vs. spiritually minded.

 

Let me ask you this, if you had a bad dream in which you cheated on your spouse, is that a sin?  Why not? 

 

Proverbs 23; "7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he"  The question is; was the dream "thinking from the heart" or not?  If it wasn't from the heart, where was it from?   I'll answer that; it is from the brain, which is not 'from the heart'.  The brain can generate thoughts and desires and wants that are not necesarily needed for any carnal survival but simply for pleasure or comfort (therefore not a need) or some made up need, like a phobia or obsession and that can be different than anything generated by the spirit.  

 

Do you know what an obsession is? Obsessions are thoughts that recur and persist despite efforts to ignore or confront them.  The person doesn't want them but they are there and overriding, it causes anxiety and frustration because the thoughts go against what they really want to do and the person feels like they have to complete the act to get rid of the thought, like washing hands, checking if the door is locked or even sexual obsessions etc.  How can there be a conflict like that unless there are two sources for the thoughts?   Is an obsession a sin?  Why not?  Is is a sin to not overpower the obsession spiritually?  I don't know, that is for God to judge knowing all the variables.  Maybe in some it is a sin because they could have done things to control it, whereas others despite their best efforts that "thorn in the flesh" remains their whole life uncontrolled.  God will judge that.

[Did women ever hold the Priesthood?]

I agree - when I was in college I worked for a while as an office assistant in an insurance office - because of legal problems in accidents (including insurance coverage) I determined that I would not loan my car.  I use to say two things in life I do not loan - my car and my girl friend.   Humor aside I think you make an important point - not all of us can inherit every thing G-d has.  In particular G-d's gender - I do not think the ladies will inherit that -- ever.  

I have news for you.  If I make it into the Celestial Kingdom with my husband, everything he has will be mine.

 

The reason there are separate Kingdoms is for the issue you are addressing.  If one is not worthy to be loaned something of God's, believe me, they are not going to be found in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Did women ever hold the Priesthood?]

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations.

 

Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean?

 

It's interesting though, isn't it?

I am not sure how one could interpret receiving all that the Father has any differently, especially when one looks at Christ' prayer that we be "one" with the Father as He is "one" with him.  The parable of the prodigal son says; " 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."  According to Gospel Principles, last chapter, those that are in the Celestial Kingdom are eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father - meaning, He will never go off and do something else that we are not privy to.  Just like the parable of the prodigal son, all that the Father has is the son's.  The son give to His Father but all that the Father has is His as well.  This is what makes it from everlasting to everlasting, the fact that we believe in vicarious acts.  Jesus acted on our behalf.  We do believe that we can benefit from someone else' act.  When the Father does something, those that are eternally in His presence benefit from that act and it works the other way around too.

 

What you are describing, where an individual receives glory for their personal acts is what Satan wanted.  He did not want a Savior, he wanted all the credit for himself and of himself.  Those that have similar ideas will receive what they want - they will be put into a Kingdom where one is separate from the other like the stars differ one from another.  The glory of God is one, it is not various.  If one receives the glory of God it can only be one thing, it is not something that varies or is proprietary.

 

D&C 132; "...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

 

What other definition do you have for the words "inherit" (typically meaning something given that was not created by the person receiving it but from someone else) and the repeated use of the word "all"???   ALL power and ALL glory.  God's glory is based in giving ALL that he has.  The father in the parable of the prodigal son rejoiced in his sons return.  That is where that father received his happiness in that he could share everything he had with his sons.  Likewise, our Father in Heaven receives glory by sharing all His glory with whoever is worthy to receive it, that is His work and glory.  It does not give Him glory to claim it as a proprietary act. That sounds like a Satanic god to me. God does not want to step above us, He wants us to step up to Him and have everything He has.  That is the God I worship, not one that wants to keep us under His foot.