Seminarysnoozer

We have? Look at my post #12, it was brought up pretty early in the discussion.

I agree with what everyone has said thus far. I would add that the idea of bringing about righteousness requires a separation process, the assignment of a Kingdom based on the degree of righteousness. To create a spectrum or "degree" designation of righteousness one needs two ends of the spectrum, righteousness versus evil. If it was an all or nothing choice, like what happened with our first estate, that isn't necessary, it is just a yes or no response. But, because we will be judged with a degree of righteousness then a spectrum is needed to reveal where we stand in that gradation or degree of righteousness or glory. And, so, in that sense opposition needs to be introduced to bring about righteousness, or the degree of righteousness. If the final exam question was a single true or false question then nobody would ever get partial credit. ... all the passing grades would be compounded into one.

You agree that there are other plausible explanations but you missed one very important one that is an established concept of our religion. That is the idea of inheritance. When we advance to the point at which we inherit a Kingdom we receive it in "full". That is in the scriptures. What does it mean to inherit the Kingdom in full (or the fullness thereof)? When you learned the English language as a child, or whenever you learned it, did you really learn it line upon line? You may say 'yes' but really you did not, because you did not invent the English language. The establishment of the English language came about before you were born. You skipped over those lines and went straight to learning the language itself. ... you inherited the established language. Similarly, by inheriting a specific Kingdom and level of glory we can and will inherit all that was done before by those of that level. This is done through the power of being a covenant and sealed people. When we are sealed together, bound to each other through our Eternal family unit, we participate in all that the Father has. This is the story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son came home to have all that his father has. The idea that achievement and growth is a personal thing is somewhat satanic. That was Satan's idea, that he could do it on his own. We know that is not true. This is why 'family' is so important to our religion. It teaches us the value and truth of this concept. This is why we believe that we should love our neighbor as our self. Because it is that kind of person who could truly be bound together with others in a non-selfish way to inherit all. At the point the inheritance was received, the Father inherited all that was before Him as if it is and always was His own. All the things that existed eternally in that sphere is now His. The Kingdom is not divided when inherited, it remains one. We can be one as well.

Really? I agree with your opinion and from what I have heard by way of testimonies born in Sacrament meeting it seems that most LDS have a similar view. I agree that family is the key. Look at the difference between the Celestial and Terrestrial kingdoms. I think the reason the family is key is not necessarily because I am married and have 4 kids and want to be with them forever but because I think the belief that real joy comes from taking pleasure in the success of others. And that attitude which is incorporated in being Christ like, to love thy neighbor as thy self, is the same trait that gives one the joy that comes with family life. Family life is the opportunity we have to learn to love that type of life if it doesn't already come naturally. As I believe God will give what our hearts desire is, this is the chance we have to learn the importance of that trait and learn to love it. Satan was so far removed from that concept as he does not find any pleasure in the success of others, specifically the success of God or Christ that he makes himself excluded from such a program that attempts to teach that. When we know how to feel the success of others, like the joy I get when my husband and children do well, then we have the potential to be Celestial beings and be like our Father. Another key aspect of this is that God receives something from our successes, joy. Many religions suggest that God receives nothing from our efforts, that the status of God does not change one way or the other if we do well or not. I think that can't be any farther from the truth. A Father receives joy from the successes of His children and in this way His joy can be eternal and progressing. Having a family in this life teaches us that truth that I am defined by my family. Not everyone has the same opportunities for family in this life but the love of that idea can still be fostered and evidence of its value can still be seen and learned.

I agree with everything you say here except I think the statement that "Satan elected not to follow" is too simple of a statement. He did follow up to a certain point. When presented the conceptual idea that in order to go any further in our development we would need to "die", leave God's presence, he wasn't willing to stretch his faith in God that far. Anything shy of that kind of sacrifice, it seems, he was willing to take. But you are right in the sense that if a person is only willing to cross a bridge half-way then they really aren't willing to cross the bridge. Lucifer became Satan, though, because of a conceptual disagreement or disbelief. I think it is important to understand it that way because it teaches us that all of us here agreed with God's plan and understood it conceptually. Here, on Earth, is where an "intelligence" has an opportunity to do what we said we would do. So, here on Earth is where we have the chance to follow in the physical sense, do it. Spiritually it was follow or not follow in the conceptual, understanding and appreciation of the plan not anything done. Out of God's presence, not following occurs, in the action sense of the word.

Truths, including the knowledge of whether something is or is not true, has to be learned line upon line. The process of obscuration or darkening of the "right eye"* occurs over time as well. It happens because of many choices over the course of one's life that makes it more and more difficult to recognize the truth. I think it starts with even little things in our youth. If a person chooses to be honest or dishonest, the people we hang out with, the types of things we expose ourselves to in terms of books, music, movies etc. When people rely on their carnal discernment more over time it is like what would happen if an infants eye was patched for years, eventually it would become hard to see through that eye. The other reasons people don't is summarized in the parable of the sower given by Christ. *"Right eye" as in Matthew 5:29 and Zechariah 11:17, it means ones memory and knowledge of good pertaining to the ability to discern spiritual falsity. In other words, the images formed out of that "eye" are not perceived correctly. .... if it causes one to stumble, they are supposed to pluck it out.

I think you raise a question that we just don't know the answer, we don't know what it means to have spirit children and the process involved. My feeling is that there is some random aspect of it that is not really under the control of our Heavenly Father, but that is my personal leaning. Kind of like having children in this world ... I don't think our Heavenly Father "genetically" engineers spirit children to turn out the same way every time. He may not have control over that. But we don't know that. Also, I don't think Satan "turned" evil. I think Satan was Satan all along but may not have revealed himself until the opportunity arose. Just like we might not really reveal who we are until we are placed in this situation where we have choices made behind a veil. Our first estate was to see if we would vow to follow God and some stopped there. The second estate is the test in which we prove that we would actually do what we said we would do, so not just in word alone. This reveals the strength of our character when given this situation but we do not turn from anything different than we were before. I also don't think Lucifer changed from his person. He may have been going along with the plan up to that point but for the wrong reasons, fame and glory and power etc. When the choice came about as to what he was willing to sacrifice to obtain the power and glory, to him the price was too great and so he revealed that about his person. He didn't turn from who he was all along. In other words, any way you want to slice it, he would have made the same decision every time the decision was placed before him. There would be nothing God could explain or do to have Lucifer make a different decision than the one he made. I think this is an important concept because I think it applies to us as well. We reveal who we really are by being here and making decisions. From this information God is able to place us in a Kingdom forever because we would choose that path every time we were given the choice. We work it out here but once it is worked out and revealed then there is no changing us into a different being. The whole plan of salvation is dependent on that concept, in my view, that our characters (our spirit self) is formed (we can't become something other than what we were spiritually created to be) and the plan allows us to reach our potential whatever that is.

Why could it not be that the source of "evil" is our own brain, our body? A "source" of evil is needed to create a choice between good and evil. We are dual beings both spirit and body. This is where we find conflict and are told to become the master of our body. The brain of our body generates spontaneous thought, imagination and generates hormonally and nature driven and pre-programmed carnal behaviors that have to be mastered over time. The spirit is pure. If it were not so we could not have passed the first estate. That isn't to say that some were more valiant than others, that is a different topic. If the spirit is the source of evil then Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil before they were in the garden. That, in my opinion, changes the whole story of creation and even the reason to come to this world and be tested this way.

I realize that. I was taking advantage of your specific point to make a broader one which is the idea that if we love the things of this world, specifically, the things that are not eternal over things that are eternal, that is a form of rebellion. The moral relevance, in other words, is if a person is getting tattoos as a show of love of self, a prideful love for uniqueness and trying to stand out amongst the sea of people who they believe all look similar then that carries with it the risk of turning their heart away from things that are eternal. This is the same argument for the love of money. Just like having money alone does not make one sinful, having a tattoo does not make one sinful either, in my opinion. It is the sometimes attached love of self, I think, that is morally risky with that behavior. Of course, it would be a highly judgmental statement to say that everyone who has a tattoo did it for that reason, I know that is not true. And, I wouldn't be able to differentiate why any specific person got the tattoo. Just like, not everyone that has money has the love of money. Or everyone who is poor and wants money loves the money they don't have. It is where the heart is that matters and makes it a moral issue. My personal belief is that a culture that loves the idea of promoting external individuality for the sake of visual diversity as visual homogeneity is "boring" or less attractive or whatever other similar false statement they use, is a satanic tool to drive people further away from what Jesus taught, the desire to be one with Him and God in all ways. To be one with Him in spirit but also until His countenance is in ours. Any practice that promotes an individual to follow their own direction at the expense of not paying attention to divine direction and to learn to love that way of living is in the opposite direction of the path that leads back to Heaven, in my opinion. The path is straight and narrow, the goal is one not many. Loving ideas that promote the possibility of many pathways to happiness and joy is against what most LDS believe, in my opinion. To me, that is one of the possible many reasons the leadership give us that type of direction, not just to put out a certain face for the world.

Of course there is no proof. This isn't a forum on physics. This is a forum about things that are believed and not proven. Based in a set of basic LDS beliefs, I think it is reasonable to include in those beliefs that what we do to our bodies in this life will not be included in it's restoration. The restoration will be to it's perfected form, whatever that is. I would imagine it is just how he created Adam and Eve's bodies in the Garden of Eden. But, even that, I don't have any proof or specific knowledge about how that is done. I don't think it is done, however, with a catalog of choices like "would you like brown hair or black? would you like a tattoo of Jesus on your back or on your shoulder? ..." However the body is created in it's perfected form does not seem to be consistent with a variety of individual and unique features to make one person stand out from another. The Celestial Kingdom, as we are told, is like the sun, one body. Maybe where there are many bodies, like how the stars vary one from another, there might be those individual distinctive features. So, people that like to stand out and be unique may prefer that setting.

Haha! I think that is an interesting discussion as there are some in the church, including members of my family that feel strongly about these things. I hate to say it this way but some may even take it to the extremes of presenting themselves like those in fundamentalist LDS faiths. From what I see, I think most would say there is a balance. There is some measure of presenting oneself but not to the point of 'loving oneself' to the point of prideful thoughts. As was posted, women putting one set of piercing in the ears is okay, etc. I see one of the dangers of tattoo'ing as that, a prideful statement. My friends that have gotten tattoos explain that it is a statement of individuality, something to set them apart from others. To me, that seems like the most dangerous aspect of it, similar to the possible reasons for people getting plastic surgery or wearing extravagant clothes or jewelry, etc. Anything that would promote that drive for individuality as an external measure of uniqueness has the risk for prideful thoughts. Like Jesus not wanting to cast himself off the temple in front of the crowd, we, in our small ways, are not supposed to want to call attention to ourselves.

Exactly, that is why I brought that up. I think tattoos are in the same category of plastic surgery. It might even be in the same category as any kind of body adornment, jewelry, tanning, hair coloring, make up, etc. What, morally, is the difference between a tattoo and make up? ... without the argument of permanency, what's the difference?

Body building and regular exercise are not the same thing. I exercise 6 days a week for health reasons. My husband has friends that have competed in body building contests, that is what I am talking about. There is a certain look that is the goal. And knowing those people that compete in those events the goal is to change appearance. It is also a 24 hour passion of those that take it seriously. It becomes the 'golden idol' for many of those people (not all of course). The point of the question was to ask about a number of other activities that people do with the intent of changing appearance. To answer your question, I would love to know what the body that God designed looked like but I will have to wait for that. That will be interesting to see and have some day.

Do these same ideas apply to a little plastic surgery? What about botox? Or a little liposuction? What about taking propecia for hair loss? What about body building - that can also be painful and the result is to change body shape away from what God "designed"? My view on this topic is based in the idea that God did not "design" our current bodies. The Fall allowed for our bodies to become corrupted and misshaped and varied off of the original creation. We still should treat the body like a temple but even the temples have adornments and repairs.

I agree with you and I believe that most LDS see it that way too (but that could be my biased view). I would add to your reasons the fact that there is value in accomplishing tasks, in other words, "bringing to pass" things which is supported by scripture. If things are already brought to pass by some future being played out already then there is no value in bringing anything to pass. To maintain some significance to the idea that something is done or brought to pass is to say that there is a past. If there is a past then there is a future not just a now. I think the typical argument is that we can't understand it because we exist in this realm with time. Well, I think we can't understand it because it is a man-made concept that there is a possibility for the non-passage of time existence. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports the lack of passage of time. The only reference to time may suggest that for God there is no beginning and end, which is one definition for "time". And that is true but does not refute the idea of the passage of time or having a past and a future. That is simply what we call "eternal". "Eternal" being the opposite of "time". But both maintaining the passage of time or in other words the maintaining of a past present and future. Everything is only "as if" it is present. Like watching an old world war 2 movie, it is "as if" it is present ... I believe it is in that sense even though we don't understand how.

I agree, otherwise the word "whole" is very deceptive. Because I would think they weren't made physically "whole" as they still likely had the same rate of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, hypertension, cancer etc. It wasn't like they became like John or one of the three Nephites, that death had no power over them. Even for them, I am not sure if they are without their "thorns". They were cured of a specific disease, as far as we know, but not made physically perfect or whole in that sense. ... At least that is how I see the story.

As you point out in those quotes "The cool thing is, we all share some common ancestry with Jesus... we are all sons and daughters of Adam too, and that makes us grandsons and granddaughters of... that's right ... We are all children of God - and His grandchildren too... " Then, actual lineage means very little as we are all of the same lineage in that respect. There is no actual value (at least nowadays) to point out any specific lineage. Even for us now, would it make a difference to us, more than the historical interesting fact that He had a right to the priesthood, that He was of a certain lineage? ... to fulfill the prophecy, I suppose. But it has no other value? In other words, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things who begat who 10 to 20 generations ago if we are all sons and daughters of Adam?

What is the significance of understanding it that way? Does it matter to our gospel whether Christ is a literal descendant of David or a "euphemistic" descendant of David, as in the way a lot of us are adopted into Abraham's lineage? In other words, what is the difference between someone who is a literal descendant of the house of Israel versus an adopted descendant in the grand scheme of things? Does not the "adopted" son have a a right to the throne as well? Will the designation of literal (genetic link) versus adopted have some eternal significance?

Whenever I've taught I use those manuals because they have so many quotes. It fills the time if nobody is participating in the typical exchange. :) I have just used them as supplements as well. They are great books, along with gospel principles.

I am sorry that you are seeing this as some kind of battle that could be won or lost. That was never the intent. It is only, like yourself, the thirst for knowledge. And I am glad you are willing to go the rounds as far as you have to ponder these things. All of our testimonies are based in different things and experiences. We all have been given various gifts to build upon. And I think they were meant to be shared for the most part. Of course there are some things that are just for the individual but that is rare. For some it is given to just believe without understanding. Others it is given to believe in the witness of someone else. But not all have that gift in this life to all things. A big part of my testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel lies in the idea that there is eternal progression and increase. To me it gives purpose to this life, it drives me forward. It relates to the importance of families and the eternal family. I hold onto that fairly strongly because I think it is different than most religions. Of the little bit that we have been given in the description of the eternal celestial realms there is nothing that we are told in general (which may be different than you have been given I suppose) that suggests that the passage of time does not exist in some manner. The very description of light requires time. The idea of eternal increase and progression which is the very reward for making it into the celestial kingdom requires the passage of time by definition. Whether it passes slowly or at a different perceived rate or some new type of perception that we don't have here is fine, that still doesn't go against the idea of having one moment which passes then another moment, one round then another round, one work then another work. A timeless being could never present himself to one that is in the dimension of time (as in Joseph Smith's vision) even if the person is transfigured as how would the timeless being say something to the effect of "Okay, now is the moment in which I need to bring this person into my presence and now is the moment I need to go back to timelessness"? That could never be with one who is timeless as there is no moment. The timeless being would have to visit with the transfigured being endlessly as there is no end to that moment in which the visit took place. A timeless being could not interact with beings that experience the passage of time, that is simply impossible. To me that is as bizarre as saying that God is so powerful he could destroy himself completely to be non-existent and then bring himself back. Of that God is so powerful that he could make something out of nothing. Man made concepts are like that though, they just end up creating a bunch of confusion and frustration. Maybe someday we will find out that it is possible to be timeless but I suppose at that moment we learn about timelessness we would tell ourselves that there was never a time that we ever thought about there being no timelessness as that would be giving into the idea that there was a time different than the moment that we are in.

I appreciate you sharing your experience, that is brave of you. If this is the description of what you said earlier, "I was there" then I would point out that you describe events that require the passage of time. "When he spoke" and "I couldn't help but look" suggests there were events that occurred one before the other. Even though the experience, I'm sure, would be hard to describe as it is different from what we experience here, it still seems to me that there was a passage of time, albeit immediate reactions, there was something that happened then something else.

Thanks for at least appreciating where I am coming from and seeing those differences. Even if you take a certain stance, I appreciate the discussion because it helps me work through the "why" a person believes one way or another and helps me develop my understanding. (I appreciate Jayana's discussion as well) The issue about bringing in science to this discussion is that 1.) they are just theories and 2.) We believe that the "physics" of spiritual matter is different than our current material world. To assume that spiritual matter behaves and reacts in the same manner as our corrupted and maybe simple world is to assume a lot in my opinion. As far as the Maxwell quote, I think if one reads that with the definition I gave above of "time" just referring to having a beginning and end, meaning "mortality" then it makes perfect sense without requiring any definition of the passage of time. To have an eternal view of things takes away the view that we have which is temporal. To see things through spiritual or eternal eyes is different than temporal vision. How our obedience and faith and work relates to the bigger picture of eternity would certainly change our view over the common temporal view of immediate gratification or doing things to better our temporal world. There is no need to apply an additional made-up description of this possibility that there is no passage of time. "Being in the dimension of time" could simply mean a state in which there is a beginning and end, could it not? Why does it have to mean anything more than that? Being in this state of having a finite existence which includes having a veil and a corrupted body and everything that goes along with it obscures our view of things past and obscures our view of the eternities. The veil which goes along with this "dimension of time" does that. Does God have a past? How can we talk about "God once was..." if there is no past? Does God have a future? How can we talk about eternal increase or eternal progression if there is no future? I think the concept of timelessness or no passage of time takes away these essential aspects of LDS gospel with that view and yet I see no benefit in ascribing to such a view. If God can "see" everything in the past and in the future as if it was present but still experiences the passage of time, how does that lessen who God is from a view that time does not pass for God? What additional quality am I missing that makes people so passionate about that view that I wouldn't get from a God that can "see" the past and future as if it is present but still experiences the passage of time, thus having a past and a future maintaining His ability to have eternal increase?

Sorry to exhaust you, lol. I guess I keep going back because I don't think we are talking about the same things. I believe the lesson to be correct too, it is just a matter of what a person interprets "time" to mean and in what context. Either a.) "time" in this sense means a period that has a beginning and end, thus the opposite of eternity. or b.) "time" within the context of talking about spiritual matters refers to the "passage of time" which allows for the ability to complete a task, as it is in the past. The ability to have a past, for example "a job well done", "works", "to have posterity", "eternal increase". or c.) it means both a and b --- This is what I think you are having a hard time seeing, the separation of these two contexts of "time" If you look at what it means to not have "time" in those two senses, a and b, then for a.) to not have "time" simply means eternity. In my opinion is all that is meant by a being that is timeless or that is eternal. For context b.), what would timelessness mean in that context? It would mean the inability to say that a job is done, the inability to complete a task as it can never be in the past. "Works" would never be done. God could not participate in the passage of time with us then. There could not be progression if there is no passage of time as there would be no difference from one moment to the next. God becomes static in that sense. Even if you were to use the analogy of a round, there is still an implied passage of time as one goes around the circle. The passage of time could still occur just like the hands of a clock go around in a circle. To say that it is one eternal round does not say that there is no passage of time. That is a leap into a man made, made up concept. How else can we put the words "eternal" and "progression" together in the same phrase unless what that means is to experience the passage of time without having a beginning and end? Otherwise the words would be "eternal stagnation". Brigham Young spoke of either having increase or decrease, there is no standstill. If there is either increase or decrease then time passes. To define increase or decrease one has to pick two points in time, that defines time and the passage of time. You say that the Lord only speaks of the past for us to understand it better that He doesn't experience a past. Then you are saying that He doesn't experience the completion of any task, there is no job well done, there is no accomplishment or realization of anything. To know that something is done after it is done to me is a valuable thing. I believe in a God that is emotional and answers our prayers, both of which require the passage of time. Joy is felt in knowing that we have done what we said we would do, after it is done and along each little step towards those goals there is a sense of taking a step, meaning there is a past to build upon.

"The Book of Moses informs us that the great work of the Father is in creating worlds and peopling them, and "there is no end to my works, neither to my words," he says, "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," and in this is his progression. "Commenting on this the Prophet Joseph Smith has said: 'What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same [that is Christ must do the same]; and when I get my kingdom. I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I [Christ] will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.' "Do you not see that it is in this manner that our Eternal Father is progressing? Not by seeking knowledge which he does not have, for such a thought cannot be maintained in the light of scripture. It is not through ignorance and learning hidden truth that he progresses, for if there are truths which he does not know, then these things are greater than he, and this cannot be. Why can't we learn wisdom and believe what the Lord has revealed? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.7) In this light, are all the Kingdoms that could be presented to our Eternal Father already presented if there is no time? As Joseph Smith said "I shall present it to my father" is false because it is already presented? If there is no passage of time then there is no Eternal progression. In the sense that there is no beginning and end within the eternities there is no "time". We can't separate the concept of 'passage of time' from there being no beginning and end?

As we exist in the eternities do you think we will perceive past, present and future? And what does "eternal progression" mean if there is no progression of time?