Seminarysnoozer

Yes, that is true, there were different types of animals and plants placed. How many different types of human beings did He place in the Garden? ...for what its worth.

I agree that we were not "created to be" anything, stepford wives/husbands whatever. We were "created" to give us the opportunity to be like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). What we become is our choice. If one wants to remain something uniquely different from God (by definition means that there is something lacking) than that is their choice. We are judged by the desires of our heart. What I have been discussing is not the opposite of agency, it is all a choice, a choice between all versus partial.

Lets make sure we are talking about the same things. This whole branch of the conversation got spun off the comment of 'how would one mate be different from another in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom'. The conversation already implies that there are individual beings. What I was referring to was their traits, their characteristics, how they act, what they would do if they were in the same situation etc. If potential mate A has all the "good" traits there are and has eliminated any "bad" traits (they have received a fullness of God's glory and all He has) how could that possibly differ from potential mate B who also has all the "good" traits there are? They are different people, A and B, but if their glory is full and they received a fullness, how would one be different from another? Please just answer this, if you were to become (by your own choice, agency driven, not forced) a "clone of God", why would that be bad? What is it that frightens you of that idea?

All the examples that you gave are descriptions of the differences that exist mostly in this life, that is what I meant. Maybe at least you will agree that as we approach perfection (if that is the direction a person is heading, which probably applies to only a small percentage of all individuals on this Earth), that the differences become smaller. Maybe you don't agree with that, I don't know. Maybe you think that the differences don't change, which would make me wonder what you think the purpose of this life is. Or maybe you think the differences will increase, which to me doesn't fit with the gospel teachings at all. When we say that the plan is to help people become more like Heavenly Father, in what way do you think that is? If one says, to have His glory or to have His purpose, I don't see how that can be separated from personality when it is completely perfected. (Before reaching perfection, yes it is different.) His glory is based on His personality, what He does, how He thinks, the things He finds value in and works on, the things He loves, etc. These are all personality traits. They don't vary and they are not whimsical. They are not variable or random. His glory was obtained the same way it always has, eternally doing it the same way. The opposite of that is to have mannerisms and decisions that vary with the wind. When one group sees themselves as different, that is the start of prejudice and pride. It is the start of entitlement and judgement.

I think you are mixing the idea of being of the same personality with the idea of becoming one being. I do not believe in a process of molding and congealing into one enormous all encompassing being. I am talking about developing traits that would be described as the perfection of all traits, without deficiencies in any aspect that we would call "good". If person A has all those traits, it wouldn't look different than person B who also has all those traits. Why do you call being "one" in thought and mind with God, mindless? Purpose dictates personality. If a person is "Christlike" that suggests an attitude, a thought process, a mannerism and action. What other aspects of "personality" are left? Haven't you ever asked yourself, "What would Christ do?" So, in your description, does that make a person "mindless"? Of course, we aren't there yet. And we weren't there before this life. I am not arguing the description of the back of the arrow, I am talking about the tip of the arrow point that we are all striving to be like. When Jesus prayed that we could be one like He is one with the Father, what was he praying for? Your answer is probably, so that we can all be one in purpose. If 2 individuals are one in purpose and they receive a Celestialized body, that has with it all the traits of perfection and they receive a fullness of God's inheritance, what would one person lack that the other person has? All means all, I am not sure how you would propose that one person would have less than all at that highest level. Their would be no deficiencies in personality or purpose. I don't know at which point the fullness is achieved exactly, but our target that we are moving towards should be single (meaning all that the Father has), not various (meaning parts of the whole). The whole plan of salvation is one of becoming more like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). That is the opposite of saying that the plan is to become more individual. If that is the plan, why go through all of this, like you said, we were different from the beginning. Not everyone will achieve the whole inheritance. Whatever one desires in this life will carry through to the next. If one wants to have a part of the inheritance that is possible. If they want to have a unique personality for the sake of being unique, I am sure there are options for that. That requires less work than being whole and so the progression for that goal will be limited, it will stop shy of having everything. We try not to set our sights lower than our potential. But, our potential is a self fulfilling prophesy. If we believe we are less than the whole and that is all we can become, that is probably true.

You've confined your responses to just this life which was not the conversation. So, by changing the focus of the response you can say "no" all you want. I don't disagree with you at all there, we are all different here, yes, I agree with that. I didn't say anything contrary to that in the first place.

Well said! The scientist also doesn't have to repeat every scientific experiment done before them to prove to themselves that those findings are correct. The scientist would take it as "fact" even though the "facts" are based in some amount of trust and faith that the progenitor scientists provided "truths" that are correct. This is a very basic concept in our gospel that individual knowledge is stagnant and would take us off the path for eternal progression. This is what was proposed by Lucifer, to do it on his own. To figure it out on his own and by his own effort so he can claim all the growth and glory from the growth that produced on his own. That doesn't work. We all have had that discussion before this life and realized it doesn't work. The system that works is when we can inherit knowledge. In the same way a scientist can look through a text book on scientific principles and inherit the knowledge of all the studies and information obtained before that person, based in faith that the textbook information is correct as she didn't prove it for herself and doesn't have to run through all the experiments found in the textbook. We are all here to show our worthiness to receive such an inheritance. An inheritance rooted in the fact that we don't have to recreate all knowledge, we can obtain it from those who have it already. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "inheritance" and there would be no grace, just works and knowledge earned. (Even though I have been trying to say this like 3 times now, I don't think he is getting this message. You said it well though so maybe now it will be understood this time.)

My point is that even in things that you are calling scientific "facts" you haven't proven them all yourself and yet you believe in them. By definition, that is faith. Not just initiated with faith but you still have faith in them and you build upon that faith. Have you discovered the laws of electricity for yourself or have you taken the word of someone else' research on faith? Have you discovered for yourself and proved for yourself how metal is mined and refined to make wires for the computer you are using or do you have faith that it was made properly? Have you discovered for yourself how to make plastics and rubber etc.? Your life is surrounded by things that you continue to have faith in and build upon them. You don't have to recreate all human learning that occurred before you. We don't have to all start out as cavemen, so to speak. If you were left by your parents in some cave somewhere at birth and without any assistance in your growth and development came to your current knowledge, then maybe you could claim that there was no faith involved in your current "fact" based knowledge. But I doubt that is the case. It is all a matter of what you have faith in, not that faith contradicts "facts". Your dichotomy is wrong. You said; "There are those that once had the faith that the Church was true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and so on, but then they study other information that they see as true facts and contrary to the claims of the LDS church concerning these things." In place of "true facts" you should have put '...they put their faith in ...'. The source of the problem may be more in them seeing that information as "true facts".

The imperfections of this world were created by the Fall. For this reason we need deliverance. God's creation occurred in the Garden of Eden, so what "creation" is he referring to? For a person to learn of how there is no beginning or end requires learning, spiritually, line upon line. If one doesn't have a testimony of the value of faith then I can see how they would want to jump right to having all the answers from the beginning and want to answer such questions.

Again, I said "highest level", so, please don't take that out of context. Of course we will be individuals, I don't think I said anything different from that. What characteristic or trait that God has does Jesus Christ not have? When looking at those two individuals, what makes you so uneasy about them being "cookie cutter" people? I sure hope the differences that we find here don't continue after this life. I realize that some people fall in love with their temporary stewardship they have here in this life and want it to continue into the next but by definition that is loving the things of this world. That is to be carnally minded. We would be unjust stewards to claim it as our own. Think of the parable of the unjust steward. For example, if a person is 6' 10'' and becomes a professional basketball player, it would be prideful of them to think that their height advantage is something that would continue in the next life and a "difference" that would continue in the next. Also, if a person was given a brain that we would consider intelligent, more than average, and that person believes they are more intelligent than another and will maintain that difference in the next life, that is prideful and his/her challenge is that of the "learned man". Does Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' continue after this life? Does Moses still have difficulty speaking?

Which "distinct character/personalities"? The ones that we were given here with our temporary, corrupted body stewardship? This is why I said "the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom". If a person receives the fullness, all that God has, what trait or characteristic that God has do you think will be missing from those that receive a fullness? We are told that when we see Christ we see the Father. That doesn't sound like any distinct character/personality to me, even though they are two separate beings. There are other levels and other Kingdoms available for those that do not have their eye single to the glory of God. If they would prefer some other characteristic then I suppose they could find that elsewhere. In the Telestial Kingdom one star varies from another.

What type of sexuality, as expressed in this life, is not caused by genetic factors (at least in part)? *Note; I didn't say "gender". And btw, "genetic factors" are rarely directly passed on without change from one generation to the next. This is part of the corruption we live in.

In the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, what "mate" would be different from any other "mate"?

Name one "fact" of science or history that you know as a fact and true that didn't require some amount of faith in the teachings of someone else. Even if you said something life "the laws of gravity", that phrase was not invented by you. You are taking it on faith that the word 'gravity' means 'gravity' as you didn't create the English language yourself. Everything you learn in this life, as it is in the eternities, is built upon the learning of someone else. As much as people want to take credit for their own knowledge, it never is. This is probably the most frustrating thing about "faith" for people who fight against it - they want to believe that they actually know something based in their own effort, even though the knowledge was given to them. This is a prideful thing, to not acknowledge the "fact" that your learning is received rather than generated by one self in an isolated manner. As much as you have a distaste for faith you, as well as everyone, use it more than they realize.

Thanks. The discussion may seem heated but it's not, at least on my end. I think we both have been doing this long enough to know that any regular poster on a forum typically is opinionated. For me, I have learned a lot on this forum by 'talking things through'. It helps me flesh out why I believe certain things and sometimes even change my beliefs. Here, we can have a little deeper discussion over gospel principles than one would get or have the time for in Sunday School. The only reason I would have an intense exchange with anyone here is because I respect their input. If I didn't care about what they had to say I would end the conversation a long time ago.

How one defines Mormon religious terminology in part depends on one's belief in the power of seership. Having had and currently having Seers in our religion allows the shedding of light as to the definition, beyond the common usage of the word. Whenever translating words are involved there is always a chance to misuse a word or not have it fit directly into the sentence structure as it was originally given. So a Seer is necessary to shed light on the actual intended meaning of words. Going back to the dictionary or the common usage of the word, even in a historical context, may take it further away from the intended meaning. For example, in English we may say "That doesn't work." But is the intended meaning of "work", labor or function? Someone who doesn't use English regularly may not appreciate the difference and be confused over its intended meaning. If translated to Portuguese, for example, one might say "Nao da" which directly could be translated as; "that doesn't give", even though the intention is, 'that doesn't work' and in the right context, "Nao da" would mean exactly that, 'It doesn't give" as opposed to "it doesn't work". So, the context is also important as well as the intent. These are things that Seers can provide. When one has a strong testimony of the power of a Seer, then those definitions take precedence over the common or simpler definitions.

I am not sure what exposure you have had to the medical field but to say that we only treat symptoms is absolutely not true. What is the symptom of having high cholesterol? What is the symptom of having high blood pressure? It very well may be nothing and in fact when those things are treated a person does not feel any different. And I am not sure what the example of aspirin and headache have to do with our discussion. Have you ever been in an evaluation for migraine headache? The discussion mostly surrounds triggers and lifestyle factors that prevent headaches such as lack of sleep, certain foods in the diet, avoiding stress, staying up on electrolytes and fluid intake, knowing one's triggers etc. Not sure what your point was there in terms of what I was saying .... The only thing I disagree with in your second paragraph is the fact that it has nothing to do with genetics. The pleasure centers of the brain are all built differently. A study out of UCLA; "The researchers found a marked correlation between behavior patterns which they term "novelty seeking" and the expression of certain variants of the DRD2 and DRD4 dopamine receptor genes. Novelty-seeking behavior markers include excitability, impulsiveness, extravagance and disorderliness. "Identification of the molecular genetic factors contributing to temperament and personality is highly complicated, and we are just beginning to put the many pieces of this puzzle together," said Noble, Pike Professor of Alcohol Studies and a professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA. "Despite the considerable evidence supporting the role of the dopamine receptor genes to pleasure and thrill-seeking behaviors, I believe as many as eight additional genes may be involved in forming and supporting personality characteristics." If someone has a manic episode which has been shown in many studies to carry a genetic predisposition, (a child of a parent with mania for example is about 6 times more likely to get it than the general population) and that person has as part of their manic episode hypersexuality, are you trying to say that genetics had NOTHING to do with it? The reason 'predisposition' is used as opposed to 'disposition' is that phenotypic expression of these things are not usually 100% and there are a lot of other corresponding genes and environmental factors, no doubt. But the original 'predisposition' was by no means the design of the individual, they are born that way. The genetic factor wasn't created by purposeful or cognitive behaviors done during the person's lifetime to produce the inheritable predisposition. I am really not sure what you are getting at in your third paragraph. Cognition is not always voluntary. When I think that I would like to have a plate of tacos in the middle of a fast Sunday, that is not the thought I really want to have but it still pops into my head because that is how the brain works. There are spontaneous thoughts that are not a result of any controlled process. In fact most of what the brain does remains in the subconscious but affects behaviors still the same. Just like the computer you are on, you can't see every little calculation it is making, it doesn't come up on the screen. In fact most of what your computer is doing is not on the screen. It is even more so with the brain. In your third paragraph you seem to be contesting the idea that predisposition somehow means predestination. Those things are not the same. I know that, you know that. I never said it was 100% genetic. So, I am not sure what you are arguing about there. It seems like you are taking my discussion as an all or nothing statement, which it was not. I was simply saying that we all have certain, genetically determined (meaning given from the process of obtaining a corrupted body in this life and not as a function of our spiritual development prior to this life) traits. The mismatch from our spiritual traits and our corrupted body traits is what creates a lot of our challenge in this life. Understanding that, it doesn't matter if someone with SGA says they were born that way. I still don't see what difference that makes. I was born with some genes that say "eat a lot of food" but believe me, my cognitive thought is not what created that drive because I have been fighting against that my whole life. Everyone has their set of natural man tendencies that have to be managed and contained. But the goal of this life is not to get rid of the natural man tendencies, only to contain them. Even Paul was okay with not getting rid of "thorn in the flesh" because he understood the plan. Your final question of why I think society should give support to SGA is a loaded question with a supposition of something I did not give. I never talked about society supporting SGA, so I am not sure where that question comes from. I think showing love and supporting people with whatever challenges they may face in this life is important and it is important for all people in our society to do this, to show love to each other. .... but, that probably isn't the answer you wanted.

It makes perfect sense because whether you accept it or not the fastest way to learn is by faith. When your parents taught you how to speak you took it on faith that what they were teaching you is correct. You didn't say to yourself 'I don't want to learn that until I can come up with my own language first and decide whether English is the best language to learn or not or the correct way to speak'. You first took it on faith that what they were saying is correct and you learned. If you had to invent language all on your own with no outside, faith required learning, you wouldn't be sending messages by the computer today. If your teacher in Kindergarten said, "these are the primary colors ...", what would happen if a child said, 'I don't believe you, I am going to investigate this myself until I have all the facts and I will get back to you on this.(at least, those were her thoughts, not that a Kindergardner would talk that way)" That child, if she were to go out and try to establish what a "primary color" would mean and why all on her own, without any faith requiring assistance of any kind, would still be working on that project for the majority of her life and all the other kids who took it on faith would be well advanced. So, whether we like it or not, faith is the fastest way to learn and all of us use it more than we realize. The real question is what are you going to have faith in? Faith in a being with all the answers or faith in men who have a very small portion of the answers.

Why is it so obvious? You have misspoken. To find a "cure" for cancer is not the same as preventing cancer for the individual who has cancer. Preventing cancer requires the understanding of how it comes about. Even if by science we were able to prevent it from ever happening again, that isn't necessarily a "cure" for it, just an eradication of it. (Like getting measles.) Once it is there, the focus is more on how to get rid of it, whether there was a 30% predisposition because of genes and a 40% contribution by things the person did (like sunburns etc.) versus 80% predisposition because of genes and only 10% action and 10% unknown factors ... what difference does it make? We are not going to "cure" the predisposition. Our life here on Earth is intended to carry with it certain predispositions, was my point. There are many examples of our need to overcome many of these predispositions as the natural man is an enemy to God. If one thinks that the goal of this life is to overcome all the corruption that was created by the Fall by way of man's knowledge (science) then that person has no real understanding of the purpose of this life. If our pursuit is to right every corruption than our focus becomes one of focus on the things of this world that will later turn to dust. There will be a time when all "cancers" are "cured", when we come unto His rest. Our gospel is one of 'deliverance' out of bondage. If that is the case, then it requires being in bondage in the first place. To desire to never be in bondage was previously discussed and decided in the pre-mortal life. We all chose the route of being in bondage so that we can be delivered from it.

I think charity implies a certain amount of empathy and understanding of the person's situation which is greater than love. It implies a certain relation between the two. "The love of Christ" was exemplified by Christ because He knows all of us so well. He couldn't have charity for us if He didn't know us well enough or at least our situation. I can "love" my new car but I can never have charity for it.

Way to go. That is a wonderful quote when applied in it's proper context but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I am not sure what your intentions are with this quote. President Uchtdorf here is talking about councils and committee meetings and their varied needs in different wards and stakes etc. This is a reference to meeting those varied needs that we find in this life. Since I was not talking about this life, this quote has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I have already explained my belief that this life is obviously varied, corrupted and diversified then of course there are various needs that have to be met. Hopefully, people don't get deceived by this quote taken out of context and think it applies to the next life or our goals for the next life. On top of that, "doing things" and having the same desires and likes and dislikes are two different things. Even though Christ can be of the same nature as God, that doesn't mean they have to be doing the same things at the same time. And yet they can have the same likes and dislikes. The sentences in the same paragraph and right before the quote given are: "Second, as a result of pondering and discussion, determine a few specific actions you will commit to implement. Please keep in mind that the actions of each organization, ward, stake, family, and individual may be different. They should fit your circumstances and needs."

I am not sure what difference that would make anyways. We know that we are all sent here to face the corruption of our bodies, to be in a fallen state. The corruption isn't developed with age necessarily, it is there at birth. It can be reinforced with age and made more difficult to overcome. But why try to establish what came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm not seeing what difference that would make. Of course, we are not responsible for those corruptions until the age of accountability but the corruption is there right from the beginning. We all face a different set of corruptions. Always, with any desire of the heart that is contrary to what God would want of that person, "I was created that way", is not going to be an indication that it is right. God takes into account all the variables that we have a hard time measuring and describing. The point is that we all face "born that way" challenges, even Christ had some of those by being mortal. We know the natural man is an enemy to God. The choice between physical nature and spiritual nature is the test and the test is set up by having a mismatch between those two natures involving various traits for different people. We don't all face the same challenges. The cognitive process you talk about, in spiritual terms, is similar to the "obscuration of the right eye". Eventually, when a person pays more attention to the passions of the body over spiritual ones, their ability to discern spiritual matters darkens.

Thank you, well spoken. Yes, I think this is the dilemma we face while here but may not be so once we see things clearly. I think the ideal can be maintained without passing judgment. This is similar to the "evil" some of my girlfriends express towards putting their kids in sports - "there has to be a looser if there is a winner". So, do I not, at least in front of them, encourage my daughter to win the game? Do I not celebrate when she has won the game? But here is the thing, what I am celebrating is the effort and what my girlfriends are hearing is the celebration for the win. We will be judged by the desires of our heart and God will take into account all the variables that would account for situational differences and diversities found here. In the end, the judgement of performance is comparable regardless of the diversity found here. God is judging effort within the proper setting of the variables. In other words, the individual who received one talent if he would have doubled it would be no differently rewarded or judged from the individual who originally received 5 talents and doubled them. The diversity created by one individual receiving the one talent and the other the five in the beginning of the test was never intended to be a permanent diversification, it is temporary. Why would that specific diversification be continued onto the next world if the two received the same "grade" or judgement for their actions? The diversification we find in this world is for the purpose of qualifying souls for the next world's assignments. If I take a test that says 'Jack is traveling down a train going 40 miles an hour and passes Jill going the opposite direction going 30 miles per hour, how far apart will they be in 2 hours?' That is not supposed to imply that I will actually encounter that situation in real life. It is a test. Does Moses now have a problem with speaking? Or does Paul still have a thorn in the flesh? Not if they are made whole and receive a fullness.

Since you paint with such broad strokes I am not sure where you stand based on your most recent post. I think if you are using such broad statements such as "heavenly diversity is a certainty", how can I disagree with that? Of course, like I already agreed to, there is a Kingdom where such applies, for sure, as it is described one star differ from another. And I think the diversity and distance from God are likely linearly related. As we will not all be in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after judgment day then, yes, there will be diversity in heaven. But that is not our aim at the moment, at least I would hope not. If one wants to aim for the stars that is fine, that is part of the gospel, to bring about the immortality of man. If we want to talk in generalities about the work of bringing to pass the immortality of man and the eternal life, then, yes there has to be included the diversity that comes from those various levels of glory. If we want to talk about exaltation, then we can really have a discussion about where we are heading. I think Jesus was very clear about where He set His sights for us, Matthew 5:48 " 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." And Luke 18:19 " 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." "...none is good, save one, that is God." makes it a little hard to call diversity anything like "good". And John 17:20-23 " 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." This isn't a requirement, it is an ideal. I think we would all do well to have this same ideal that Christ had. I realize that not all will reach the target and in that way there will be diversity. But diversity is not the goal and it is not "good" for diversity sake alone. If that is in our hearts, which is unlike Jesus' prayer, then that person will probably end up having the diversity they so crave in the next life, which is described as one star differing from another. The Celestial glory is described as one, though. If you think "one" means something other than single, then please explain. I tend to think it means what Jesus described in John 14:7 " 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." To me, that is a pretty good description of being one.

People may disagree with my strong view as far as this goes but pretty much all temptations are from the body, the corrupted body. One thing to keep in mind is that God did not create the corruption, the Fall of Adam and Eve created the corruption. The bodies that God created, one of each type, male and female were the perfect versions in the Garden of Eden. We are currently dual beings, both body and spirit. The natural man is an enemy to God. This is the test, to distinguish which passions come from our natural man (the body) and which are generated by our spiritual being, our spirit self. The frustration of this life in all areas we find frustration is when the two natures don't match. But that mismatch is what creates this probationary state to see the contrast between good and evil. If our body's passions matched our spiritual ones exactly then there would be no test beyond what we were already tested with in the previous life. We, in this life, are tested with where we prefer to put the desire of our heart (what we like the most), the passions from the body versus the passions from the spirit and to what degree. We don't want to make our carnal nature take precedent over our spiritual nature, at least our desire should be towards that end even though it can't be done 100% in this life. In other words, the natural reasons for getting married and having children should not be our primary motivation to do it, it should be done with spiritual concerns as the main motive, ideally.