Seminarysnoozer

No, that is exactly why it requires discernment. It is not that black and white. We all have the light of Christ and we all passed the first estate test and so there is no man that is purely a "natural man". It is the end point of the spectrum we find ourselves between the "natural man" versus the spiritual (perfect) man. There was only one who was on the opposite point of the spectrum while in the flesh. A test that results in a gradation of responses and reward requires questions that are not black and white or true and false but ones that are part this and part the other. In the end we are put into Kingdoms of varying degrees, not just one or the other. A purely carnal choice or a purely spiritual choice or thought rarely exists in this life. The true or false test occurred as the first estate test. Now we face the separation and gradation amongst of all those who got an A on the last test. Even Joseph Smith, the spiritual giant he was, wrote this "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Think about the difficulty when we talk about things like the "burning in the bosom." Is that heartburn, a heart attack, or a prompting from the spirit? It requires a bit of discerning power to know the difference, not just some analytical or empirically obvious objective description. In fact we have a hard time describing spiritual experiences with natural man words. We have to use metaphors. There are natural influences, there are spiritual influences and to what degree we tune into either of the two, so we are minded. Are we typically somewhere in between being spiritually minded, or carnally minded, on a spectrum between those two descriptions. Both influences persist throughout life. On fast Sunday, for example, I can be hungry. The Apostles can be sleepy while they pray. Even when someone is spiritually minded, the natural man exists and still influences, thus being "in the flesh". We have to take the test "according to the flesh." After choices are made one ignores one and listens to the other as we cannot serve two masters and in that process becomes either carnally minded or spiritually minded. And the fruits of the two are described by Paul. It is an ever changing spectrum alternating one over the other at various times. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" could not be removed in this life. The nature of the test we face is that the two are hardly distinguishable unless a person is listening carefully and discerning carefully. This is why the spirit is called the still, small voice. Mark 4 : " 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." How is it possible to see and not perceive and be hearing and not hear or understand? It is because there are two kinds of hearing and seeing, through different eyes and ears (metaphorically speaking). And it is supposed to be that way, it is part of the test for dependency on the Lord vs. shunning those promptings and only relying on the natural man experience. As much as people try, it cannot be done through natural eyes and ears. We are, by default, natural beings unless we are reborn of the spirit. It is not only a rebirth needed but a growth and endurance in the spirit nature (while in the flesh) that is needed. The spiritual influences take effort to discern whereas the carnal ones take no effort, thus called the "natural" man or default influence.

The higher level of understanding might preclude the need for such a practice. We don't know all the reasons it was instituted but we do know that plural marriage is not the standard, it is the exception to the rule and temporary. From LDS.org; "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise." And; "Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes.6 It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households;7 and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.8 Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,”9 covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles." So, if we are in a place where there is no need to give birth to children in a Mormon home as opposed to some other circumstance, and we are already cohesive, and there is no reason to endure "ostracism for their principles", and there is no financial benefit, and there is no providing marriage to those who otherwise wouldn't have a chance for it, then we really do not have any reason to suspect plural marriage will be there any more than we will have a circumcision ceremony. Some theorize that there will be more women to men there at at-least a ratio of 2:1 but I think that is even more of a theory than the statement found in LDS.org that one man married to one woman is the standard.

It is not a matter of how much you give but how much you love the Lord and keep an eye single to His glory. D&C 64; " 33 Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great. 34 Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. 35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land" What is in the heart is a statement of who's will are we following; Moses " 2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." Remember, by keeping our first estate in the pre-mortal world, we all made that same statement - thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. This life is a test to see if we actually do the thing we said we would despite the pull towards self centered satisfaction. I like how Elder Oaks said it; "If our service is to be most efficacious, it must be accomplished for the love of God and the love of his children. The Savior applied that principle in the Sermon on the Mount, in which he commanded us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us. (See Matt. 5:44.) He explained the purpose of that commandment as follows: “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? “And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?” (Matt. 5:46–47.)" Where do we seek our praise, from man? our employers? or are we in the service of God. We are more efficacious if it is done for the love of God and others. ________ Also, think about everything you know and understand in this life. I would say 99% or more was obtained by faith in someone else, either a parent or teacher or by reading someone else' words etc. That is how important faith will be to our learning in the next life too.

How about circumcision, will that come back too? Genesis 17: " 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Are we of the seed of Abraham either bought or literal? Even if circumcised, what mom stays in the hospital 8 days after the birth of her son for this to happen? It is typically done within 2 to 3 days. This is described as an "everlasting" covenant and yet we know it is a law that has been fulfilled. The wording is similar to Smith's. This is why we have prophets for our day and time. Just because it is a law and has been described as "everlasting" does not mean it will be practiced in the millennium or in the next life. Everyone in every era will be judged by the laws of that day, of that time and if they are made available through revelation. And if a person doesn't follow the laws given to the best of their ability they will fall short of all they could have received in the next life. I think that is pretty universal. Over interpretation of it, though, should also then bring to mind the possibility of circumcision, animal sacrifice after delivery, animal sacrifice after having any kind of oozing skin lesion (Leviticus 14 and 15) etc. in the next life. You may say, 'those issues may not be a part of the next life, what kind of skin lesion would we have in the next life?' - BINGO! - same for plural marriage.

Like gfchase implied, perspectives may change how we view these things. While in paradise pretty much all things were good and sweet, I would imagine, for Adam and Eve. The opposition was introduced after the transgression. To the human body (corrupted, post-Fall body) bad tasting things are a warning for potentially dangerous food. I would imagine there was nothing experienced to that point that they could say, "I don't want to eat that because it doesn't taste good." They probably ate all of their broccoli, in other words, while in the Garden. (Not to say broccoli is bad.)

Thanks! Exactly! The eternal principle is obedience and following the direction from God outlined in those verses, not polygamy. Just because commandments are given and some are found obedient to them does not automatically mean they will be practiced in the eternities. I wonder what gfchase thinks about animal sacrifice in the next life or circumcision (not just of the heart). As already stated, those that die before the age of 8 obviously did not have any "seed" in this life and yet have Eternal Life. The promise of "innumerable seed" has nothing to do with how many children one has in this life unless such a commandment was given to that individual via revelation and commandment and the opportunity given. It is not a universal commandment such as is the everlasting covenant.

Our prayers are with your and your family.

Mosiah 15: "25 And little children also have eternal life." What little child lived the principle of plural marriage? More boys die under the age of 5 than girls. There are children who have died that now have eternal life. They have it now! Your statement is false. Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom? To this question the answer is a thunderous yes. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the year of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10.)" Bruce R. McConkie: "Will they have eternal life? Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unit in eternity. We have quoted scriptures saying that children will be saved in the celestial kingdom, but now face the further query as to whether this includes the greatest of all the gifts of God—the gift of eternal life. And in the providences of Him who is infinitely wise, the answer is in the affirmative. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, “Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.” (Lectures on Faith, pp. 63–67.)" Did Jesus Christ practice plural marriage?

What tribe does Adam and Eve belong to? ... I want to know as I am related to them and have their blood.

In other words, it is something that you couldn't back up with a little bit of research. .... interesting.

Just because one thing affects another does not mean that they are not separate. I can drive a car but I am not a car. And a car cannot drive me, it doesn't work both ways. They are separate, we are told they are separate and that is obvious. It is our duty and test to be able to discern things that are spiritual versus things that are not. Again, Paul distinguishes these two forms of learning and the restrictions of of doing it one way or another. 1 Corinthians 2; " 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." He goes on to explain that in detail. "The spirit of man" limits learning whereas "the spirit of God searcheth all things." What is limited to the spirit of man? " 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." Paul establishes very clearly that there are "things" of the Spirit of God to be learned that the natural man cannot. Do you accept that fact or do you wish to argue against Paul? What is the difference between the natural man and one that can discern the Spirit of God? It all depends on the motive, it depends on the drive and purpose. If one is focused on the religion, the spiritual, God then it becomes possible to comprehend all things. If one does not focus on that then learning is limited. D&C 88; " 67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things." What does it mean to have one's eye "single" to the glory of God? It is the opposite of the Tower of Babel approach. There is a single way to reach the understanding of God and it is not through the knowledge of man or by having two different goals.

I was more arguing the process. First spiritual then the other will follow. But if one does not put the spiritual first those evidences may be lost or "darkened". To me, the whole discussion is about the manner in which the understanding is sought. Not so much whether it could be integrated or not except with the idea that if secular learning, or the learning of man is primary, then there is a limitation to what can be learned. Matthew 6: "19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Just so we are clear, this world and all that pertains to this world which includes all of its "corrupted" science and features will be dust in the end. This world (and I am assuming the universe too) will one day receive its paridisical glory and in the process be changed from its current state. We should not put our heart in treasures that turn to dust in the end. The heart of the matter D&C 130: " 19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." When considering that scripture; one should ask their self, 1.) How much knowledge did I have while living in God's presence for innumerable years (pre-mortal life) to the point of not being able to advance any further? How many facts about science, "dark energy" etc. did I understand prior to coming here? When talking about knowledge "gained" it is in comparison to what is already known (from pre-mortal life). I think most would agree, there probably isn't a single fact that can be learned that one in the end would say, "I never knew that." 2.) the principle outlined in verse 19 is centered around diligence and obedience. Exactly what I am trying to say, put spiritual things first and all else will come. Without the obedience part (of course we are talking about obedience to the Lord and His gospel) it is not to our advantage. There is no advantage otherwise!!!

Genesis 2 : " 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Studies show the mortality rate for single men aged between 30 and 59 two and half times higher than those who are married. Also widowed men and single mothers have more acute and chronic health conditions than those married of the same age. In addition, children whose parents live together but are not married are more likely to get poorer results at school, abandon education earlier and develop a serious illness (Married couples are healthier and live longer - and so do their children | Mail Online) Religion has done a lot, more than we can measure, in the ideal of holding the family as the center of society. Also, what about the word of wisdom? Certainly, that understanding preceded current understanding regarding substances such as tobacco. Lets see who comes out on top in 2 Nephi 5: the followers of religion; " 11 And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind. 12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or ccompass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written. 13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land. ... 15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." Or those that hardened their their hearts to religion; " 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. 25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction." Lets give credit where credit is due; according to N Elden Tanner; "“For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” (Isa. 60:2.) This period of the apostasy was known as the Dark Ages because the light of the gospel was withdrawn from the earth. More recently, in modern revelation, the Lord has declared: “And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel.” (D&C 45:28.)" So, what advanced our understanding? Science has yet to prove this fact; "“And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.” (D&C 88:67.) ... and they probably never will.

I have already tried to suggest that idea but with little success. This topic spawns into a pondering of how exactly does "fine" matter interact with "coarse" matter. I agree that we know so little about it that we cannot assume it is through some common measurable physical science property as if fine matter is somehow connected to missing pieces of the periodic chart (coarse matter). I would tend to believe there is the periodic table (coarse matter) and then there is the separate "fine matter" table, such that one does not have an inherit interaction with the other. The interaction would have to be arranged or forced in some way, i.e. - creation and the Fall. Without the creation, the two aren't "naturally" found together. There is no per-organization of material mixed state. As far as we know, the two might interact at a level to someone interacting in a virtual cyber world. Similar to the end of the movie Avatar, the two are separate entities until they become one but only when there is a change in the physical matter to an eternal state and thus no longer "coarse" matter - resurrection. This is supported by the idea that one type has to change to interact with the other. The body is transformed to interact with God or Christ has to descend to interact with coarse matter.

The book of Genesis is written many years after Noah. In other words, Noah was in Paradise at the time those words were written. The words do not say "in this life". Just keep that in mind, but even then, you know this, the word "perfect" has several meanings explained by the guide to the scriptures as "Complete, whole, and fully developed; totally righteous. Perfect can also mean without sin or evil. Only Christ was totally perfect. True followers of Christ may become perfect through his grace and atonement." The footnote in the scriptures says "complete, whole, having integrity" as the Hebrew translation. Whereas the footnote in Matthew says "complete, finished, fully developed." If you think a man can become "finished" and "fully developed" in this life then I am not sure what the resurrection is for. My opinion correlates with Bruce R. McConkie's. I am not sure why it needs more than a whole paragraph of clarification for you, that was given. In summary it states that the trajectory of life is set when we depart this life. If we live righteously we will continue onto the pathway towards perfection. "Being perfect" entails setting our trajectory in that direction so it can continue the same when we depart this life. The "trajectory" judged to be perfect is dependent on a lot of factors that only God can judge, thus it is based in a certain set of circumstances or laws given for that time, i.e- generation. If one leaves this life pointed towards the Celestial Kingdom based in the laws given for that generation then they would be called "perfect" in their generation. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I am honestly not sure that there is a difference between "not going along with the program" and "taking a path that leads to Babylon." Inaction and omission is taking a path. I don't see the difference. Inaction to listen to the spirit, to ask, to look towards the light is the same as taking a path to Babylon. Satan chose not to believe in the plan, that it could work, he did not have faith in Christ. Unbelief leads to ignorance. There are too many scriptures that state that to even put here. And Satan attempts to cause the same misery he experiences to as many as he can. The misery being ignorance, spiritual blindness, hardened heart, darkness, etc. . 2 Corinthians 4;" 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the flight of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." I agree with the path analogy but I think you are missing my point. The point is that by taking the wrong path one's capacity changes. One can become blind and lose knowledge one once had when the choice was made. Just like one can become enlightened by making right choices, the opposite is true, one can become blinded by making the wrong choices leading to a state of irreversible ineptitude. Is a drunk driver not responsible for a death that might have been caused by their state of unawareness? Or is the sin only drunkenness even if the person knew there is a chance of hurting someone while in a drunken state? Alma explains; Alma 24;" 30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things." Revelation given to Joseph Smith D&C 78; " 10 Otherwise Satan seeketh to turn their hearts away from the truth, that they become blinded and understand not the things which are prepared for them." Ephesians 4:" 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Under the Guide to the Scriptures, Death, Spiritual; "Separation from God and his influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37)." In other words, Lucifer became the Devil (see D&C 29:36-37). He became separated from the influences of God just like becoming blinded to the influences of God it results in an ignorance to righteous things. A spiritual death is explained in Alma 12:" 16 And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second adeath, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness."

We are talking about two different things. I am not talking about truth of itself, I was talking about the method in which it is obtained. The difference being "truths" obtained in other ways outside of spiritual confirmation through the Holy Ghost have a potential to become distorted and false or they become falsely applied or interpreted. The scriptures are a good example of this. You and I will both agree that the scriptures contain many wonderful truths but how one receives them will alter their significance. Isaiah stated that in the later days good will be called bad and bad called good (paraphrasing), this is the manipulation of truth. How is that? That happens because it is not received in the right way. I know we have talked about this before but for all those who have not been part of the discussion; the human brain misinterprets information, it is what, in part, makes us human. The brain makes up information, the blind spot is a good example. The brain does not see the blind spot and yet our mind cannot perceive the area that is not receiving information without doing certain things to bring that out. How is there not a hole in our visual field corresponding with the blind spot? Because our brain has the ability to fill in the hole with signals that are spontaneously generated, they are made up, they are not real! Jesus tried to explain this to Nicodemus. John 3:" 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." This is Jesus' words; there are things born of flesh but they are flesh. Meaning, they are natural things and things other than spiritually born. We cannot see God unless we become born again and see things through spiritual eyes. Nicodemus had a hard time understanding this because he was seeing things through natural eyes. Then Jesus explains that there is another way to receive truths; " 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" Jesus separates "earthly things" from "heavenly things" and the different ways in which they are received. President Marion G. Romney explains; "Nicodemus, however, not having yet been born of the Spirit, lacked the perception that comes from the Spirit. He simply could not understand that Jesus was saying there are two sources of knowledge, two different processes of learning—one through the normal senses of the flesh, the other through the voice of the Spirit." In case you try to pin this idea on me again, let me emphasize the fact that this is coming from a modern day Apostle, Marion G. Romney; "there are two sources of knowledge, two different processes of learning—one through the normal senses of the flesh, the other through the voice of the Spirit." And that is his interpretation of the words of Christ. Sorry - can't give you any stronger argument than that. Paul also taught this concept (again, I did not originate this idea); From Marion G. Romney's talk "Receiving and applying spiritual truth"; " To the Corinthians, Paul said: “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit … “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. … “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. [That is to say, the things of the Spirit, the verities of eternity, the meaning of great events and signs, and the ultimate truths are not to be had alone through the learning process of men.] “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. … “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”" Are there truths that are spiritual discerned that cannot be discerned in other ways? That is the question you should be asking. The answer has been given by Christ, Paul and Marion G. Romney and countless others.

That is not my statement, it is Bruce R. McConkie's, .... see the quotation marks?

God has never promised that we could see Him or spiritual truths through natural eyes. We can learn natural truths through natural eyes, which I think is your question. We were talking about spiritual truths and now you have switched gears to talk about "truth of science". I realize that you see all truth as one thing but the scriptures separate truths and maybe that is where you are having a hang up on this topic. D&C 67; " 10 And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual. 11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. 12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind." Part of the humility process spoken of in verse 10 is to realize that man cannot reach God through the natural mind. We cannot reach God through the Tower of Babel. That is the lesson of the Tower of Babel, man became too prideful in their own knowledge and decided not to depend on the Lord. The same mindset is occurring today.

Your question is vague. Is it possible for fallen man to be perfect while in this life? No! Is it possible for fallen man to be perfect eventually? Yes! "We do not work out our salvation in a moment; it doesn’t come to us in an instant, suddenly. Gaining salvation is a process. We have to become perfect to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. But nobody becomes perfect in this life…As members of the Church, if we chart a course leading to eternal life; if we begin the process of spiritual rebirth, and are going in the right direction; if we chart a course of sanctifying our souls, and degree by degree are going in that direction; and if we chart a course of becoming perfect, and, step by step and phase by phase, are perfecting our souls by overcoming the world, then it is absolutely guaranteed – there is no question whatever about it – we shall gain eternal life. Even though we have a spiritual rebirth ahead of us, perfection ahead of us, the full degree of sanctification ahead of us, if we chart a course and follow it to the best of our ability in this life, then when we go out of this life, we’ll continue in exactly that same course. We will no longer be subject to the passions and the appetites of the flesh. We will have passed successfully the tests of this mortal probation and in due course we’ll get the fullness of our Father’s kingdom – and that means life in his everlasting presence.” Writings of Bruce R. McConckie, p. 51-54 To respond to your second paragraph - I don't disagree with your statement about when we chose to partake of the Tree of Death. I agree. I believe that was part of passing the first estate test. Those that didn't want to partake of that fruit were cast out of the program. I will not respond to the second part of your paragraph because this is not the place to discuss such sacred things. The temple ceremony provides such insight. Consider the pause. Let me just point out that God clothed Adam and Eve with skins in verse 27 of Moses 4. Then in verse 31 of Moses 4 it states that they were driven out into this world that they were told about where they would have to sweat for sustenance etc. We don't know how long it took God or, in other words - how long it takes to prepare such a world. Before they were driven into the fallen world they were clothed (received a fallen body) but yet they were still in the presence of God, in the Garden of Eden. I think they received the effects of the fall, but the scripture suggests a time between the new body and the driving out into this world that was prepared for them. There is no measurement of the passage of time between those events. Living with a fallen body in a paradisical situation (the garden of Eden) is similar to what the millennium will be, may be not exactly but similar. How long could a body "clothed" with skins from God live in a paradisical environment? Thousands of years? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? The burden of proof is on you to tell me that it is not possible. I don't have to suggest it is true, just that it is possible. Then, believe it is possible.

This is an impossibility, so I can't answer the question. He didn't merit receiving a body because of his personality and nature. That is like asking what kind of a doctor someone would be if they were allowed to go to Medical School despite an issue of them not graduating from High School and not having any interest in science or biology. It just wouldn't happen. Does the body allow us to have certain knowledge we couldn't otherwise have? You don't think the answer is, "yes!" ??? Satan, not having a body, wouldn't have that type of knowledge.

You are right, we have to be careful how we interpret scriptures as we are talking about spiritual things. If we want to relate the scriptures to the topic at hand we have to suggest that Dark Energy is spiritual in nature, that is what you are suggesting. If that is true then that kind of truth is obtained spiritually. Man can know the truth of God through spiritual means and by putting off the natural man. Man can know the truth of God by not seeing through natural eyes but spiritual eyes. That was my point. D&C;11 " 11 For, behold, it is I that speak; behold, I am the light which shineth in darkness, and by my power I give these words unto thee. 12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit. 13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul with joy; 14 And then shall ye know, or by this shall you know, all things whatsoever you desire of me, which are pertaining unto things of righteousness, in faith believing in me that you shall receive."

Not sure why you are saying that I am jumping to conclusions, that was not my idea. It came from well known scientists in the field, Clausius, etc. Also, if Dark Energy relates to some spiritual force; look around you and tell me where you could point in any direction and tell me that there is no spirit there. In other words, the spirit force is ubiquitous. It would be a white-out to us. I think it is a huge jump in supposition (talk about jumping to conclusions) to suggest that spirit energy is more concentrated in one area or another. We don't know if concentration relates to force or energy, even if the spirit is stronger in one area or another. Again, remember we are talking about a realm that is not part of our current state of being. One of the direct comparisons we have is from Moses in which the degree of difference is what Moses said, "man is nothing." The spirit force would be a huge white-out from the perspective of nothingness. Stephen Hawking; "It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time." The famous physicist Roger Penrose stated that the universe started out from a "highly ordered initial state" and that is why it naturally moves to a more disordered state. Sir Arthur Eddington, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University in England; "The law that entropy always increases (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations [on electricity], then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations... But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; There is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Every 2 year old quickly realizes that if one wants to make the food on the plate look smaller, spread it around. Expansion in area is not really expansion. God doesn't just spread things around in a greater area to make it look bigger.

D&C 131 suggests pretty clearly that it cannot be done. The word "only" is very strong. The statement in verse 8; "We cannot see it" is very strong. God's glory and power gives life, not death. Right after "withered and died" it says that the glory of God was on him which allowed him to be transformed so he could withstand the presence of God. Without the glory of God, one would wither and die. Without being transformed it is not detectable and that is well believed.

Not sure what you are talking about. I didn't say entropy caused anything. And I didn't say that entropy was a force. Read the sentence again. Traveler's OP states; "All that we know of it is by observation effects of it indirectly on our universe – which is to cause the acceleration in the expansion of the universe." What would you call something that "accelerates the expansion of the universe"? Definition of force; "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement." ... We are calling it an energy - "dark energy" and hypothetically saying it is involved in physical movement. What else do you want in order to call it a force? From; "Towards a Thermodynamic Theory for Ecological Systems". Elsevier.; "The relationship between entropy, order, and disorder in the Boltzmann equation is so clear among physicists that according to the views of thermodynamic ecologists Sven Jorgensen and Yuri Svirezhev, “it is obvious that entropy is a measure of order or, most likely, disorder in the system.” In this direction, the second law of thermodynamics, as famously enunciated by Rudolf Clausius in 1865, states that: “The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” Thus, if entropy is associated with disorder and if the entropy of the universe is headed towards maximal entropy, then many are often puzzled as to the nature of the "ordering" process and operation of evolution in relation to Clausius' most famous version of the second law, which states that the universe is headed towards maximal “disorder”." Laws of thermodynamics relate mostly to isolated systems and reversible systems, therefore I wasn't using the term as a statement of physical properties in this case but more of the definition "gradual decline into disorder." That is why I put it in parentheses. As stated by Clausius - The universe is headed towards maximal disorder. We want to call the thing that is making the universe head towards maximal disorder a spiritual force? That, I don't understand.