Seminarysnoozer

I agree. Pam, you are smart!

I have worked over 10 years on an intensive care floor as an intensive care unit nurse. This was mostly a neurology service floor where patients that have had anoxic brain injury or severe stroke as well as a number of other things were treated. Over those 10 plus years, I have sat with countless numbers of families and had intense conversations with the doctor about keeping the body alive in a situation where it was obvious to the family that the person was no longer there. Even though the tissue was being kept alive with medications, the ventilator and by preventing further decay and wasting by giving antibiotics and IV feedings, many families would describe that person as no longer being alive, or no longer there. So when did that person die? Technically, it is when the doctor calls the time of death based in either the heart stopping or brain death criteria. I think many people close to those situations can tell, with a certain amount of confidence, that the person actually died long before the ventilator was stopped. Another situation; when the heart of an individual who is dying is harvested, then the person dies (at least the rest of the body) but the heart is being kept alive, in other words, the heart is "physically alive" (using your words) then physical death (according to your definition) has not occurred? Or does it have to be the whole person alive? That would exclude, of course, someone loosing a leg. Then their whole body is not alive. Another situation; When there are no brain waves or low voltage waves without reaction seen on EEG, in other words, the brain is alive but not functioning and there is no chance for the brain to recover such as being exposed to severe hypoxia, and repeat EEG is performed 2 days later with the same findings. Is the person physically dead or not if the rest of the body and the brain tissue itself is alive but not functioning? In other words, is brain death by your limited word description of physical death, really physical death or not? Would you keep the tissue of a loved one "alive" on medical equipment if they were brain dead (meeting all the criteria for brain death - the brain tissue is alive but not functioning), at the tune of $80,000+ a day and for how long, a week, two months, longer? So, you see, even though you thought you had a simple definition of death, it is not that easy. The separation of the spirit from the body is a much more encompassing definition, in my opinion, even if it is not as practical.

As I was responding to Snow's comment about "death" before Adam, the more logical term to use is one that has "death" in it .... if you really need an explanation for my thought process and choice of words. Our purpose here is not to deceive anyone with certain words or secret language if that is what you are insinuating. I would be happy, or someone else, to try to explain something that I failed to convey on my first try, if necessary. I would be glad to do it anytime, if I can, without having to call me "lazy" or suggestion that the intent was to confuse. That, for sure, was not my intent. I will admit from the beginning that my choice of words are hardly ever exact. And, if anything, I tend to be too verbose in my posts. Sorry.

Thanks for your response. I would prefer to defer a lot of your questions to specific threads about those topics or even to missionaries that could sit down with you and explain the details of the doctrine so we don't derail the thread too much (unless enough really want to go with that direction, I suppose). In general, spiritual death is a separation from the presence of God, such as when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. I think it is important to realize that there can be a level of understanding that is spiritual, commonly called a testimony. That, to a member of the church , is not anything that can be explained by secular terminology or proven. As that is the nature of "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum then there is no obligation to prove these topics through objective evidence. The beliefs are supported by reference to scripture or leaders but still are mostly faith based beliefs. Knowing that one of the purposes of this life is to test our resolve, our integrity and faith, then there is only a limited amount of knowledge God gives to create the testing situation. What kind of test would it be if it was an "open book" test. It certainly wouldn't be faith based. We believe we already had that kind of test, "open book" where we chose to either side with Satan or choose to continue to follow God. We don't need to take the "open book" test again, as we already passed that test.

The comment was directed at Snow, who I know understands what we mean by "death" in LDS lingo. So, sorry if I didn't explain that well. LDS believe in both a physical death and a spiritual death. Physical death occurs when we end this mortal life and our spirit leaves the body. What I was referring to was the idea that there cannot be physical death (in the theological sense) without having a spirit attached to the body in the first place. Of course, there is a lot of organic life dying all around us all the time. Even off of our own body, skin cells, cells off the intestinal lining, cells related to sexual reproduction, etc. But, that is exactly why I am saying there is a difference between "man" in the theological sense - LDS in particular as the description I gave earlier, versus the secular description of "man" as in hominin or humanoid, or homo sapien or whatever other breakdown one wants to use. As far as your last paragraph goes, I agree there is a lot of pride attached to that statement. But more importantly what is carried with it is purpose. I would rather have the prideful belief that there is purpose to my life that goes beyond this life more than believe this life serves no purpose greater than momentary self gratification that will be all forgotten upon death.

What the gospel describes as "man" could be different than what science calls "man". In the gospel, "man" is the combination of a body that is in the image of God combined with a spirit being of the same likeness. With that as the description (more or less) that leaves a lot of room for other creatures that seem similar but do not meet those criteria. "Man" could also refer to a specific species (Adamic race), which is also an arbitrary designation based in limited scientific information by man. ... and there is no death, of course, without a spirit to be separated from its body. The process of God forming the body of Adam is unknown, even though a lot of people on this forum like to speculate that it is similar to mortal birthing. We don't know, though, if the process requires similar mechanisms observed in evolution, or evolution itself. It may be natural evolution plus at some point some genetic engineering, as an example.

I agree it will be amazing and mostly, now, is beyond comprehension. Thanks. The word "ongoing" requires the passage of time. "It happens" requires the passage of time. To have "intention" requires the passage of time, as intention implies that it hasn't yet been done. To create things spiritually before physically requires the passage of time. To have emotional expression requires the passage of time as an emotional expression is based in the change of feeling from one moment to the next. So, being "mad" requires the passage of time. We can hardly even speak about God without placing Him in the context of the passage of time. I think the idea that for God all is as one day, fits better with the idea that there is no end or there is no starting over again. Days allow for a new day, to start over again. Life as a circle really suggests that life is a cycle, more than it means that we start at square one again, in my opinion. The formula for bringing about the immortality and eternal life of man happens over and over again like starting a new load of laundry. But it doesn't mean the same set of laundry is washed over and over again (in my opinion).

By the way ... I never said it about the Savior, just Heavenly Father. But as Vort pointed out, this is just my speculation. I think it does bring up a good and useful point though. That we should believe in the complete redemptive power of our Savior, to have the ability to completely wash clean our sins.

The Forum is for speculation. If we wanted to only view the things that are put out by the church, there is a web site for that. 99% of the threads here are based in speculation, ponderings and questions. I think everyone who participates and reads the threads here should be aware of that. Knowing that ahead of time, why is that unwise? I think I have learned a lot from these forums by taking the comments and then doing my own study, prayer and searching.

As you point out in 2 Nephi 9:6-10, the need for resurrection does not require "sin" but requires being in a fallen state. And if we couldn't escape from death (future tense, hypothetical) then we would be subject to the devil. But, God's plan does not include that option and so we are redeemed from that death. The child that dies after living for 5 minutes did not sin. Are they perfect? The soul born with trisomy 18 did not sin, are they perfect? God, could have sinned during His mortal existence? Sure, How would we know, if He repented? Do we believe the sins are washed clean, like snow or are there scars and marks left? If one believes that they are not completely washed clean, then where is the faith in Christ? A person who believes that the scar remains and that Christ cannot fully wash away the effects of sin, does not have faith in Christ, in my opinion. We have to believe that is possible, that is what is included in having faith in Christ and His atonement. If we believe that we all have to pay, eventually in full (if that were even possible) then there is no mediator or at least the mediator is temporary. But the very scripture you gave says it is eternal. God's mediation, then, would be eternal too, as if it never happened. Then, we can say God has been perfect and always will be, even though He may have sinned and then repented.

I think there is a bit of mixing of terminology but that is only because it is already a difficult concept to understand. I think "time" within the scriptures you used suggest an end to a period of time, which is true. But that does not exclude the possibility of the passage of time in the eternities. There can be a passage of time without end. On top of that we are mixing what God "sees", which is also different than the passage of time. Just because God sees everything 'as if it is one day' does not mean that time does not pass. I think I am putting more emphasis on what we understand God's work and glory to be, which is to "bring to pass" the immortality and eternal life of man. Otherwise, it would read, God's work and glory is having brought to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man. If we say that there is no passage of time, then there is nothing that is "brought to pass". If there is nothing brought to pass then what is God's work and glory? There would be no work or glory because it is already done, to Him. We also, could not participate in God's glory if everything is already brought to pass. That sounds like a miserable idea to me. His works are endless and eternal because He can keep bringing things to pass. If there is no bringing to pass anything because it is all done to Him, then His work is complete. There would be nothing to Him that is not complete. In a timeless God, tell me what more work could He possibly do that would bring Him any glory or be counted as work for that matter?

Even a sure knowledge is not the knowledge that something has happened. One can have a sure knowledge of a future event, "I know it will happen". But if a being experiences the passage of time the person cannot say "I know it has happened" before it is brought to pass. So, there potentially is value in actually bringing something to pass, greater than a sure knowledge that it will happen brings. I think God lives by certain laws pertaining to justice and mercy and integrity that leads to value in actually carrying things out no matter how well known the future is. At what point is the glory for a particular event received, at the moment it is planned for a future time or at the moment one can say "It is done, it has been brought to pass"? I think there is some glory in planning an event, sure, but the fullness of the glory of that event, I don't think, can occur until one can say, "it is brought to pass".

Here is the difference though, I don't think God created opposition. He gave an opportunity for man to be an agent unto himself which led to a state in which there is opposition. If God created opposition spiritually then who fell spiritually in the permortal existence at our spiritual creation to make that happen? You are introducing a lot of supposition that is not part of our teaching. By the way, I didn't say "all scripture about choice", that was your interpretation of what I said, I just said 'opposition'. I have said several times, which you ignore, that choice can be present without opposition. That is the point that I think if you can accept then you wouldn't be so strict on your definitions. If a person can choose to be more or less valiant, that does not imply that there has to be opposition. That could simply imply that that is the measure of one's spiritual character. That person does not have it in them to be more valiant or less valiant. It is the set of spiritual characteristics obtained at their spiritual birth that determines such features after and while they are developed to their mature state. ... that does not imply opposition even though it includes choice and agency. Agency, which is different then being an agent unto oneself. If a young man goes to boot camp to prepare for war. He might be taught to be brave and not leave any of his fellow soldiers behind and to even "jump on a grenade" if needs be. He might be taught to fight hard, etc. But during boot camp, even with learning all those things, what grenade was he faced with that he had to "jump on"? What soldier got left behind that he went back for? What fight did he fight, while in boot camp? And yet some soldiers were probably more 'valiant' in their efforts than others. They may have worked harder in their preparations, both mentally and physically. So, when the time came to actually fight the enemy they were more ready than the ones who didn't prepare as well. So, what enemy did we face in the premortal existence? Yes, there were some that opted out of the battle before it was began as they weren't even willing to fight the battle, the price was too high. Then they became angry and became the enemy. But for the rest of us, what enemy did we face in the premortal world? None. Until the fork in the road was presented but even then, there was a war of words over the plan but there was no struggle to avoid deception, it was a choice. Here, the battle is fought and will end here.

He had a glorified body at that time? President Kimball: "“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:13–17.) The Mount of Olives We then walked laboriously up the rather steep Mount of Olives, possibly the approximate path he walked, a prelude to his ascension after having spent 40 days after resurrection on the earth and having, by many infallible proofs, brought sureness to the hundreds of people who had come now to realize his resurrection was real. And now he was on the top of the Mount of Olives and was saying to these greatly concerned and loved men, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). As we sat at the trunk of an ancient olive tree there and read these scriptures, we could easily imagine the Lord standing near this spot in the group of worried, loving, wondering men; and then the fog rolled in, the cloud settled down over the top of the hill, and he was gone. Then we could almost hear the angels in white apparel saying, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11)."

Because all the examples and arguments and reasoning pertain to mortality. It even says it in the scripture that you keep going back to in verse 15: " 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter." It says in that verse and other areas that the discussion of opposition in all things pertains to the purpose of this life, the life of man (meaning mortal man), of mortality. The opposition was introduced by the opportunity to fall or not, to eat of the tree of death or the tree of life. And in verse 27 it says where this freedom to choose is found, " 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh". This suggests without the flesh, without this fallen life, that opposition is not available. That chapter is not talking about the premortal life and you know that. If you think that good and evil are always present and must needs be in ALL things, then you would have to believe that Adam and Eve in the garden already knew about good and evil before they ate the fruit. Your reasoning, otherwise, is not sound as you are implying that there can never be a period of time without opposition. On top of that, the devil was there and tempting them and yet they still were innocent until they ate the fruit. How did they remain innocent if the devil was there with them and there must be opposition in ALL things. If there was no innocence before then there was no fall of man. And if there was no fall of man then there is no need for a Savior. Your reasoning does not allow for the very purpose of this life. ... that is why I can't apply it to premortal life. That, honestly, does not make sense to me, to come here for knowledge we already had. To be tested over the same thing we had already been tested. I am curious if you believe, you and I fell from our previous existence or not? Are we fallen men (and women)? Or was it just Adam and Eve that fell, nobody else? 2 Nephi explains why we had to fall. The fall is what brought about the potential for the knowledge of good and evil. If you say it was already there, as you are trying to say it is needed in ALL things, even in the premortal life, then there was no need to fall, it was already there. That does not make sense.

I think this statement speaks of you being, in part at least, in touch with your spiritual side. If you build on this and explore why you don't want her to feel that way, you might come to the conclusion that life serves a greater purpose than to just follow animalistic, neuronal and hormonal influences. There is something there that is speaking to your "spirit" that allows you to give of yourself for someone else. The more one pays attention to that, the more one is able to discern what is true and a correct belief. On top of that, you will discover where true happiness comes from, it is from that type of love and giving.

There is a scale of reasons for obedience that extends from motivation derived from personal benefit or fear to the love of serving others (God and Jesus in this case). I think this is what is taught by the laws associated with the transition from the preparatory law to the new law, the law associated with the higher order of priesthood. Most of us are working towards doing everything out of pure love but it is often done by taking steps to get there such as obedience by way of fear or wanting personal rewards associated with the commandment. The reasons for which we obey, I am sure God will use those desires to determine which Kingdom we are assigned. The Celestial is one where people have an eye single to the glory of God ... and not one eye looking at other motivations.

Having a better understanding of God's plan for us, being able to see the before and after this life to some degree helps all of us deal with what we know to be temporary and "probationary" situations. I think this also allows us to be Christ-like when we see a person as a spirit child of God. That always puts a different perspective on things than just seeing a person as their current bodily features. This is why Jesus had no problem approaching the lepers and the sinner and the rich and famous and whoever, He looks at the inside, the real person.

Thanks for the response. This is not aimed at you at all, just adding my comment to the words used. .... Being "treated unjustly" should never be a reason to murmur but this is much easier said than done. I am not perfect about that by any means, that is a constant struggle for me because I more often "say it how it is". I think if we murmur or complain, even when it is against injustices against us, then Satan wins twice. I think this is more of a struggle for the younger crowd, though, because they are constantly fed this standard of being "politically correct" so they feel a greater "injustice" is served them when faced with prejudices against age, race, sex, etc. In other words, their murmurs are intensified by what they think they deserve in terms of "political correctness". But it all comes back to what a person thinks they deserve, and the root of that is selfishness.

Because he was given a chance to express his intentions after reaching spiritual adulthood. In this life we are given the chance to show our intentions, by what we do. Lucifer did not even get a chance to do anything about his intentions other than voice them (war in Heaven and only after God proposed that option), until he was cast out and given influence over this world for a short period of time. But that will be temporary. We were exposed to his bad intentions, meaning we heard about his "evil" intentions but that does not mean that we who obviously had good intentions by choosing God's plan gained any experience with understanding what evil is, we remained innocent as far as that goes. Why did Lucifer have a spiritual make up, his spiritual character that produced an intention to be selfish? We don't know how those characteristics are formed. But they are what they are. Before this life, for all us that kept the first estate, we know of no event that revealed any selfish or impure character in ourselves. For some, that impure aspect of their character will only be revealed by the test we face in mortality, which is to do the things we said we would do here under these conditions. These conditions were not available in the premortal world, so they could not be tested in this way. These are conditions in which we experience the nature of evil, the experience of focusing on ourselves in even a basic way; survival, hunger, thirst, loneliness, sexual drives, anxiety, fear, etc. Where do those drives come from, the mortal corrupted body. They are not intrinsic to our spirits. What is intrinsic to our spirits is the level of selfishness we approach these carnal needs. Now, not before, we have the chance to show that even in this setting, our level of self focus is not to the point of choosing satisfying those needs over faith in Christ. Luckily, those needs are temporary, for this test only. Evil will be done away with, forever, in the end once it has served its purpose.

The story has to be told within a context that the people receiving the story could relate and gain the intent of the story. Just as a possible example, lets say Noah was given some Liahona-like device, meaning unknown piece of technology, that allowed him to gather all the genetic codes for every beast in the world both of those that were clean (not many genetic mutations or variations) and those that were way off the original creation, unclean. Possibly some way of storing that genetic code in embryo form on the boat and a reseeding piece of technology after the "flood", that purged all the corruption out of all the other beasts left, including the corrupted human like forms, thus starting over. To summarize such a story in terms understandable to whom the story was given, there could not easily be any description of DNA or genetic code etc. The metaphoric equivalent could have been given instead. Until we have the full story it would be hard to say that science doesn't match up with that story or vice versa.

Why are you equating "the power to obey or disobey" with the knowledge of good and evil? If my 6 year old daughter disobeyed by not brushing her teeth before going to bed one night, is that evil? She knows that it is "good" to brush her teeth, she knows that it is "bad" not to. To obey or not to obey in the premortal life is likely the vary same measure of what is called being valiant and noble. But that is not on a scale of good and evil. For some reason, you and Vort want to put the "valiant" scale on the same footing as "good and evil". I don't think those two things are the same. One metaphoric example, that at the moment I can think of, comparing the passing grades of getting an "A", B" or "C" with the differences between getting a "pass" or "fail" grade. One scale is a measure of how well a person "passed" the test, whereas the other measure is whether a person even passed or not. To me, saying someone was capable of doing evil in the premortal life would be like it is possible someone could fail Sunday School while in attendance. When given the choice of whether they want to attend Sunday School or not, they may say, 'I don't want to'. Similarly, when given the opportunity, they may say, 'I don't want to stay with this program of keeping my first estate because it leads to this second estate'. But those that kept their first estate, still may or may not have payed attention well, or worked as hard as others in listening to what was being taught. They may have been more or less valiant, more or less obedient during the process of preparation. I guess a litmus test to one's view on this topic would be to ask if one thinks that an "evil spirit", who showed evilness in the premortal world by their actions (if that was possible, as all we know about is "evil intent") could keep his/her first estate? If a person answers yes, I guess they take your view, if they answer no, they take the view I am proposing. Was Cain, for example, "evil" before this life? How "evil" was he if he followed God's plan by keeping his first estate?

"Original sin" is covered for everyone by our Savior, not just the little children. None of us come into this world with any taint or impurity. Or somehow, in what seems to be an opposite to what really happens, do you think that going into a fallen state, mortal birth, cleanses all of us? Where do you get that idea? How is mortal birth then a "fallen state"? If we are 'dirty' before coming here and cleansed by being born here, then that is not "fallen", that would be called risen. That seems like a backwards idea. In the very scripture itself that you keep going back to, it says "having redeemed man from the Fall". Why are you reading something more into that. It does not say having redeemed man from everything before the Fall. It is from the point of the Fall forward that man is being redeemed. The cleansing is necessary because of the Fall. There is no need for cleansing without a Fall. In other words, the process of coming to Earth and receiving a mortal body creates the situation in which cleansing becomes necessary by way of taking on corruption, this corrupted body, in order to return to God. McConkie makes it clear that Jesus' sacrifice covers even those before the age of accountability, to suffer spiritual death and yet return. Even Joseph Fielding Smith said; "“Satan cannot tempt little children in this life, nor in the spirit world, nor after their resurrection. Little children who die before reaching the years of accountability will not be tempted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:56–57.) That does not jive with the notion that evil is intrinsic to our spirits. If the children will not even be tempted after resurrection, or even in the spirit world as a spirit alone, then there is no intrinsic pull towards evil. Are they not the same spirits they were before coming to Earth? They are sinless spirits and will be forever and never have to be tempted anywhere at any time. What about those that grow up in the millennium? D&C 45:58 "And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation." To experience "sin" obviously is not necessary for Exaltation. I am not sure why you want it to be necessary.

Thank you, thank you.

Okay, I can see where we differ then. I do not interpret that scripture that way. Clearly this scripture is talking about "man" and "men" which is a reference to our mortal state, not our premortal state. And this scripture is in reference to the idea of "original sin". We decide to leave the presence of God which may be viewed as "sin" but because God allowed for a redeemer we are not born with "sin". And we are not responsible for Adam's transgression or the sins of our parents. In our infant state, before the age of accountability, we are innocent but because we have a redeemer. This is in the same light that Adam and Eve's fall is a transgression and not a sin. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “there is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: ‘Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning’—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—‘and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God’ ( D&C 93:38 )—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, ‘The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.’ (bold added) He goes on to say: "Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that “children are conceived in sin,” they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.” (Moses 6:55.) (also, bold added) This is from Ensign April 1977 And in that same article: "They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)" (bold added)