Seminarysnoozer

Sorry to stir this up. I have a problem with the idea that the subconscious (and I admit this is not a very well defined term even in scientific works) somehow represents our true self. I think that idea is false. That is not where our testimony comes from or our basic knowledge. Out true testimony comes from our spirit self. To know something spiritually is not the same as saying it is in my subconscious, at all! Those two things are completely different things and not tied into each other any more than the spirit ties into the consciousness. If anything, I would say that the spirit deals less with the subconscious than it does with consciousness. To remember a dream one has to have maintained some amount of consciousness while the active memory is holding onto what happened while unconscious. The active memory interpretation of the memory is a process that happens while conscious. So, what people are calling a "dream" is actually the interpretation of such ideas that occur while conscious. ... you are right, we already went over this. How do you know that things like "shared experience" is not a spirit to spirit communication and feeling as opposed to somehow channeled through the subconscious? Things like "shared experience" does not prove any involvement of the subconscious. I have made the claim about "reset"ing the subconscious because you can't reset something that wasn't set in the first place. If we could reset the subconscious or the conscious for that matter we would be God. And even then, in this life, the wiping clean is more on a spiritual level, it was not intended to be overcome in this life. Paul lived with the thorn in the flesh. Our subconscious tendencies, our primitive, reflexive, natural behaviors and drives ("the natural man") was given us by being born into a mortal corrupted body. It learns things in error, reinforcements based in pleasure, avoiding pain, hunger, thirst, pride driven things, sexual gratification etc. That is how the system is set up, to pay attention to worldly matters and to learn from them and change the thought process based in those responses. If one wants to "reset" that system, they are going to have to wait until a new body is available. One that does not care so much about worldly concerns. For now, we have to deal with the subconscious drives as they present themselves and cannot really "reset" them to do anything more than they were intended to do until death.

I would like to know where you got this information. As a neuroscientist and LDS I have looked all over for this type of information and I can't find it anywhere. I think your description of the subconscious mind as the gatekeeper of the soul is not correct. The subconscious contains many of the primitive responses that we would otherwise call the 'natural man'. The subconscious contains drives from the hypothalamus including hunger, thirst, anger, sexual drives, jealousy, greed, survival instincts, etc. I think it is best to separate it in terms of body and spirit, the dual being nature of self in this existence. The body influences include both conscience and subconscious circuitry in the brain. How our spirit influences those two aspects of the brain's anatomy is unknown and nowhere to be found in our gospel. If it is spoken of, it certainly is spoken in metaphoric terms and should not be taken so literal as to say the actual physical body subconscious anymore than saying that our cardiac muscle can have desires. It is not possible to "reset" the subconscious as you suggest. By definition, the subconscious is beneath our realization, beneath our consciousness. There is no ability to even recognize it, let alone change it as far as modern medical science is concerned. What we can change, though, is the amount of influence the spirit has over the body. Again, I think this is why it is best to describe these forces at play as those between the body and the spirit, not conscience and subconscious. The consciousness and subconscious are both pertaining to the body and not the spirit.

In my opinion, the reason faith is so important is because it brings the only chance for real and eternal success. Faith, by definition, requires reliance on someone else' work. Without faith a person would only rely on their own work which is satanic by definition. God's work is the opposite of Satan's. The most joy occurs when a person can feel the joy from the success of others, not just their own. The least joy occurs when a person can only experience the joy based in their own work and proving things to themselves without any assistance. Distrust and doubt is a tool of satan because it takes away one's ability to love their neighbor as their self and to empathize or actually experience someone else success. This is why the family unit is so important, it teaches this basic truth. This is a basic truth whether in this realm, the one before or the one after. It is not just a truth for this situation.

Thanks, I agree. This is why I am saying that it is possible to have living organic material organized via the "light of Christ" or spiritual matter or whatever else it may be referred to that is not necessarily a spirit being. If a spirit being, an "intelligence" that lived independently in a pre-earthly existence, were to be attached to a mortal body, then death is introduced from a gospel sense. If it is simply the universal animating force found in every physical thing then we don't have to call it "death" as in separation of spirit and body death when those organic forms die in a physical sense. In other words, to be more direct, could the humanoid that lived 30,000 years ago etc, be animated by the universal light of Christ type spirit matter found in rocks etc and not necessarily have a spirit "intelligence" being animating it? Again, this may be a crude example (but the only one I can think of right now), just like a computer could be made to interact and follow some primitive reflex-like actions, when this happens that happens type behavior and even some basic creative type behaviors, as computers can do. Computers obviously do not have a separate spirit "intelligence" attached to it that when the computer "dies" there is a separation of that spirit to live independently in a different sphere from the physical form. Why is it that some organic tissue could no be used to make the 'organic-computer' to make it any different than how we would consider an actual computer. The difference, from what we believe, is the spirit intelligence that is put into the grouping of atoms, as you put it. We have no knowledge of these ancient humanoids being critical thinkers. They can still be creative but without knowing whether they were also critical thinkers (in the manner we are discussing things now) then we have no outward knowledge of them being attached to a spirit "intelligence". Adam and Eve could be the first critical thinking humanoids, man, as they are the first to have a spirit "intelligence" attached to their bodies, the bodies that came from a transfiguration of the perfect bodies formed in the garden.

So then what is your understanding of the spiritual component that is left in the alive tissue of the donated organ after the donor is dead but the tissue is not in anyone else? Is it still part of the spirit that is now gone? Or is it some new spirit placed into that material? Or is it the that all matter has its corresponding spiritual matter and therefore kept alive without having an "intelligence"? Or some other possibility? "Man-like" is very vague. What about a computer, that is sometimes described as man-like. Can you conceive of a computer without a spiritual "intelligence"? If so, I don't see why you would have a hard time with a less than man organic tissue without an intelligence attached to it, not to say that it doesn't have some kind of spiritual matter attached to it, like rocks do. Do viruses have a spiritual "intelligence" attached to it? How about cloned cells? How about a new yeast cell that was made by man putting together DNA sequences from scratch?

Our "adolescent understanding" includes the knowledge that the definition of "man" is a mortal body combined with an intelligence-child of God spirit. We focus on the development of the body so much that the other half of the equation, I think, is ignored making it seemingly less important. No creature on Earth can be called "man" without having a spirit child of God combined with it. There is also no death without already having a spirit attached to the physical body as there would be no possibility of separating a spirit from the body that is not there. Until that process is introduced, the combining of a spirit-intelligence to any living organism, then there is no death. Once that process is started then death is introduced into the world. With in vitro fertilization for example, does the zygote sitting in a petri dish (or wherever they are maintained) have a spirit-intelligence attached to it? Even though that is not revealed in detail, most would say no. So, the independent living organism (even though it is being kept alive it is still independently living from another organism) is alive without a spirit. If this is possible, then God could have introduced this process at any point, even after many organisms without intelligences passed. Now, this doesn't have to mean that there was no spirit material at all associated with those organisms as the whole earth was spiritually created. If a person dies in a car accident but the organs are harvested for possible transplant and being kept alive, what spirit dwells within those organs? Not the original donor as that persons spirit has left, he died. So, there is living human tissue without a spirit intelligence attached to it, at least for a period of time. It certainly is possible. Whether that is the case or not related to all the organisms before Adam and Eve were introduced to the world I do not know. I think, though, we need to keep in mind when we talk about "man" that means a spirit child of God combined with a body that has the image of God. It has to meet all that criteria, not just the body that has the image of God. And without any spirit being attachment there is no death even if the tissue dies, it is not "death" in the gospel sense of spirit separating from a body. If a potential organ donation is kept alive for weeks after the donor dies but there is no recipient of that organ and so it "dies", when did that organ die? Did it die with the original separation of the spirit from it or only when the tissue was not alive 2 weeks later? This is where the secular description of "death" and the gospel definition of "death" clash and here we are trying to use them as if they are the same when talking about evolution and creation.

And death, at least in the sense it is used in the scriptures requires first having a spirit body connected to a physical body. Then, that kind of death can take place.

I wonder why so many with spirits fail to use them. Evolution I guess.

The condition we are in now is worse than what will be in the Telestial Kingdom. The true telestial body will not deteriorate or die. It also won't be subject to the buffetings of Satan. I think I have seen these metaphoric comparisons but I believe the state in which the bodies of Adam and Eve were created was pretty unique to that situation and most often described as paradisaical. The change from the garden of Eden to the current is about as far (but somewhat less) as the effect the resurrection will have on the body, as it is described as a restoration, a return to the original. So, if the Resurrection is barely a change than so was the Fall. If the resurrection will be a dramatic change then so was the Fall. In other words, one's view of the Fall kinda depends on how dramatic one thinks the gift of resurrection will be.

Oh, I see. So, your view is not different from mine as annewandering was trying to say. I am not sure though how you are jumping from the fact that human bodies have these "useless body parts" as proof that there is evolution. Especially, if you are okay with the possibility that God did not create the bodies we have now, the Fall did. I am not seeing that concern. It may very well be, but I am not seeing how that fact alone "proves" there is evolution.

The hope, faith, and repentance you speak of, I assume, is that same description of Paul and of King Benjamin and of Joseph Smith which all point towards Christ. Christ is necessary because of the Fall. To say that this is not necessary, I think, is a bit simple minded. It is best to complete the sentence as opposed to leaving it open ended that way. We have hope in our Savior, that we can be saved from our fallen state. We have faith in Christ, that his teachings are the pathway to salvation from our fallen state. We know that repentance is the method to bring the value of the atonement of Christ into our lives, which is the atonement needed from the result of our fallen state. If his theory (which may not be, but that is the way it came across) is that God created corruption, that theory is wrong. I think it is important for you to know that too. God did not create corruption, He did not create our bodies and the state that we are in this way. He created a paradisaical state, that is not "my" theory, it is the gospel. Mosiah 3:19 " 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." We enter this world in a fallen state, unless we put off that fallen state we would remain in it. The process of faith and hope and repentance through Christ is the way out. Elder Bednar said; "The grand objective of the Savior’s gospel was summarized succinctly by President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.” He then goes on to say (talking about Mosiah 3:19) "I draw your attention to two specific phrases. First—“putteth off the natural man.” The journey from bad to good is the process of putting off the natural man or the natural woman in each of us. In mortality we all are tempted by the flesh. 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. But we can increase our capacity to overcome the desires of the flesh and temptations “through the atonement of Christ.” When we make mistakes, as we transgress and sin, we can repent and become clean through the redeeming power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ." The purpose of the gospel is to change human nature from the fallen corrupted state we ALL are tempted by. ... not my theory.

Please explain why it makes you doubt EVERYTHING about your life.

If they grow up without sin, what experience are you talking about? The "joy, the pleasure and satisfaction..." sounds to be for the parents, it doesn't sound like the child "needs" anything more.

Why is it not possible that they already proved they earned it in the pre-mortal world? Of course, they don't get a "free ride", as you put it, but that can be satisfied by their pre-mortal performance alone. D&C 137 9-10; " 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. 10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." Mosiah 15:25 " 25 And little children also have eternal life." And also Moroni chapter 8. I think your idea that the only reason to come here is to get a body is wrong. For many, it is a chance to show that we will do the things God asks us to, and not just say we would. It is a chance to show the desires of our heart and not just in word but by our actions. As Elder Russell Ballard says, "I am grateful for this unusual experience because I now understand more clearly than ever before that the most important asset one can have in this life is the personal, inner peace and positive assurance that come in knowing that the purpose of this life is for men to learn how to prepare for eternal living in the presence of our Heavenly Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. "

The definition of "what works" is where the flaw is. "What works" is a moral value, in this category and not revealed in full until we know all the variables, such as spirituality. If you were to devise a test of character and intuitive nature as opposed to a test of knowledge base and intellectual reasoning ability, how would you design the test? Would you give the subjects facts? No, that would be a test based in intellectual reasoning as opposed to their intuitive reasoning. The best test for that would be to put people in challenging situations and see how the react to the situation, knowing the amount of limited information given, one could demonstrate their true nature. The true nature of an individual that I am talking about, though, is their spiritual nature. And God has the measuring ability as far as that goes. We don't. It can't be measured by us.

The scientific method would give no hope to the ability to separate whether the moral values come from the human brain that imagines certain beliefs and "fills in the blanks" of certain information to make sense of those perceptions versus the morals that come as directives from a higher being transmitted to the spirit. The reason is that the amount of spirit to mind transmission depends on a persons spirituality or being in tune with the spirit. And that is something that God judges that we cannot judge. It is outside man's ability to determine how in tune any person is to the spirit with any exactness. So, if science mixes in people who are in tune to the spirit with people who are not, the measurement of moral values, if obtainable would not measure God's will. It would only measure the morals of a corrupted, fallen, imaginative, deceiving human perception (mixed in with a little reality). This is why measuring it by the fruits of those morals is more accurate.

Thanks, I agree. I would say that also has to do with purpose and how strong our resolve is towards that purpose. This is why I think the more that we have our 'wills' aligned with God's, the more similar we act and our traits, our likes and dislikes etc. start to align. It reminds me of my converting my husband from a Football fan to a Soccer fan. He was all about Football when I met him and since I played soccer in High School and at a college level, I kept my passion for that sport. I started taking him to the local college games where I played previously (many a decade ago) and now he keeps track of their schedule and their rankings etc. more than I ever had . He still is a Football fan, actually, but I liken that to what happens when there are similar purposes and goals, we start to act more similar. In other words, with an eye single to the glory of God, we become more like God. I think this is similar to what you are saying.

I think your question starts out with a wrong premise, that God inserted them into the mortal world. God created Adam and Eve in a paradisacal state and realm. It is the Fall of Adam, not God that "inserted" them into mortality. Therefore, our bodies with all its corruption and faults and vestigial parts, even death itself was "created" by the Fall, not God. Why did the Fall create these vestigial parts? I don't know, but that is what the difference between corruption and perfection is, things that are useless, serve no real purpose or at least turn back to dust in the end. This is allowed to happen so we can know good from evil. Fortunately, this body is temporary. When it gets restored back to the original creation it won't have all that corrupted vestigial stuff created by (d)evolution. It is interesting that "blood" sometimes refers to 'genetics' or the passing on of genes. The created bodies had no "blood" (read into that what you will - just a thought).

Why is earthly heritage and kingship important? I think heir to Father in Heaven's throne kinda trumps David's. I've never really understand the importance of even mentioning it, other than fulfilling prophesies. Outside of that, why is it important? Why was it a prophesy worth making in the first place?

What happened is that it went further and further away from the original, that is what evolution does. That is part of our corrupted state of being which is further and further away from who we really are.

So, you have learned to see beyond the veil through Buddhist meditation? Or are you just talking about physical awareness and not spiritual?

But isn't it true that 'who we are' is dependent on who we are with in the end? Otherwise, what is the value of sealings and covenants? Which is based in something external that we may not fully understand. I would say that we are, at least in part, defined by the covenants that we make with God. There is an importance given to being a covenant people. It changes who we are and how we see ourselves. Is there no difference in who a person is before and after they are born again and take on that covenant? Elder Bednar said (October 23, 2001); "The grand objective of the Savior’s gospel was summarized succinctly by President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”1 Thus, the journey of mortality is to progress from bad to good to better and to experience the mighty change of heart—to have our fallen natures changed (see Mosiah 5:2)."

Yes! Thank you! I love you! Sorry that I am not very good in explaining myself. Maybe that is because by me talking it through I am understanding my own thoughts better as well. That is the beauty of this forum. As stubborn as I am, there have been many times that I have changed my view of things. Now that I have hijacked this thread to the farthest reaches, let me pull back a little. I think the reason this topic might be seen as related to the original post is that I think it is good for everyone, no matter what challenges we face in life that our current condition is temporary. For everyone, our goal is much higher than we could possibly reach on our own and while in this life. We are not expected to reach our goal while here. That doesn't mean that we have to lower our sights to something less than what we are valued to be, no matter what the issue we face here. Even Paul was okay with living with a thorn in the flesh and Nephi was perfectly fine with not knowing all. Those things don't have to make us feel like we have to settle with the small stewardship we are given here as if this is it. We do these small things to be worthy of greater stewardship which will make us much different from our fallen state. Don't tell my husband this but when I was young I had a crush on Billy Idol. Now, at my age, I look back and can barely admit that was true, what was I thinking? My parents telling me I couldn't go to his concert was even more reason to have a crush on him at the time. But, as I realize who he was and as I matured and understood better where these emotions were coming from, of course that isn't something I really want to pursue. (not that I really had a shot at him anyways) But, I put my focus on worthy LDS men, and my happiness is better for it. I think in the end, when we look back at this life, we will realize how primitive our emotions and thought patterns really are. We will see how fallen we really are here. My desire is not for the conditions we find here but for a higher place that is exemplified by Jesus Christ. "I was born this way" or "God made me this way" is the diversion off the higher goal, even if it is true that we have certain genetic predispositions, we all do. Elder Bednar said (October 23, 2001); "The grand objective of the Savior’s gospel was summarized succinctly by President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”1 Thus, the journey of mortality is to progress from bad to good to better and to experience the mighty change of heart—to have our fallen natures changed (see Mosiah 5:2). The Book of Mormon is our handbook of instructions as we travel the pathway from bad to good to better and strive to have our hearts changed. King Benjamin teaches about the journey of mortality and the role of the Atonement in navigating successfully that journey: “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord” (Mosiah 3:19; emphasis added). I draw your attention to two specific phrases. First—“putteth off the natural man.” The journey from bad to good is the process of putting off the natural man or the natural woman in each of us. In mortality we all are tempted by the flesh. 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. But we can increase our capacity to overcome the desires of the flesh and temptations “through the atonement of Christ.” When we make mistakes, as we transgress and sin, we can repent and become clean through the redeeming power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

This discussion also has to be couched in our knowledge of our dual nature. We are both a physical being and a spiritual being in this life. Our spiritual development and maturity has been cut off in terms of our remembrance and accessibility to that nature. Some people access it more than others. That greatly affects who we are here. That state is summarized in calling us fallen beings. The degree to which we recall and act like our spiritual self over the physical influences driven by "genetics" changes who we think we are and what we know of our true nature.

You are right, maybe I am missing your point. Maybe because there are some terms that I think are interpreted differently - see, this is what we get from being in a corrupted, fallen state. I think I am able to distinguish "personal effort" from the words "individual effort" that you are interpreting as "individuality". When Christ said, in essence, when you see me you see the Father, what was He talking about? I believe He was saying, 'everything I do is exactly what the Father would do if He were to do it Himself.' He did what the Father would do in that situation even though the individual effort or the personal effort was Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father wasn't acting like a puppeteer, forcing Christ to act a certain way. Christ was acting in individual effort but doing exactly what our Heavenly Father would do because they have the same character, the same traits. Is there anything Christ did that the Father wouldn't have done? What individual flare did Christ show that makes it indistinguishable from what God would have done if God were in the same exact situation? Likewise, if we are fortunate enough to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, I am not saying that we will be like puppets on puppet strings to follow the will of God like a robot or a computer programed to do so, we will still act under personal effort but the personal effort would not be unique to us, it would be exactly what God the Father would do in any particular situation as if He were doing it Himself, it would be done in the same exact way. To me the term "individuality" could also represent doing things in such a way as to distinguish from someone else. Please explain why, at the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, those people would want to do something that would distinguish themselves from what God the Father would do in any particular situation? What would be the purpose in that? God is the most creative because He created everything. It is kind of hard to be more creative than that. But here is the thing to keep in mind, He is the same as He has always been. Is there anything in the future that He will create that He hasn't already created or done in that way in the past? To me, that is the definition of having all power, the same power we all can inherit at that highest level. We too can be able to say that we have created all by inheriting His glory. For those that inherit all, what unique thing that has never been done before or has never been created might possibly "one up" God?