Seminarysnoozer

I don't see how this contradicts what I said, I am not seeing the "flaw". I would just be more specific about it and say that the body is the source of the "fallen character". That is where the potential for darkness comes from. All temptations that Christ had to overcome pertain to those body/brain sources, hunger, power and pride. Neuroanatomy now allows us to show where those circuits are that drive such things. It is in our brains wiring. Christ forsake his body, He gave it up, He overcame it. Also, our body is programed for death as a result of the Fall. Our spirits can be marred by our choices here but they don't become marred in and of themselves. I think this was Satan's biggest selling point in the pre-mortal war, 'why go down there and potentially scar your pristine spirit?' 'Why take that chance?' The test of this life is to decide which influences we listen to the most, carnal influences emanating from the body of our dual being or righteous influences emanating from the spirit as a result of the life we had as spirits in the presence of God. Most people listen to the carnal influences 99% of the time, Christ was the example of ignoring carnal influences from His body, which I think is only possible in a body begotten of God. Explains to me why it had to be that way and not some average 100% mortal.

I still think that relates to this life. My original question is how it relates to after mortal life blessings from posterity alone. If my great great great great grandchildren decide to have 10 children as opposed to 5, does that make a difference for me in the afterlife?

Thanks for your response. This is what I am not totally understanding. The difference though from the example you gave is that we are all part of the Adamic lineage and if we are members of the church, also of the Abrahamic lineage. So, as long as I am part of that lineage then there is no difference in my posterity from your posterity, right? Even though you are focusing on the parent-child sealing, if you take that back to Adam and Eve or maybe even Noah, then we are all connected in that way (or will be someday). If the blessings obtained from "posterity" not only pertain to our descendants but also our ancestors then all the blessings that Adam and Eve have as their posterity are also potentially mine and yours, they are the same. The only way it could be different from one person to another is if we are just looking at "posterity" and the associated blessings in the forward direction and not back. Its been said several times though that the blessings extend backwards ... all the way to Adam and Eve, I assume for all of us.

Thanks, So, you lean to the side of "posterity" meaning the lessons past on from generation to generation and not so much who is related to whom. Right? How would that relate to Abraham and being in his "posterity" if there was a break in the passing on of traditions and lessons, there was an apostasy. It was restored, but that would make the genetic trait and trends pathway a dead end at some point. So, that would support more the idea that we are not talking about genetically related people as one's "posterity". "Posterity" would possibly include all the people one baptizes on their mission, for example. The spiritual reason and lesson could certainly apply to one's immediate family and responsibilities while on the earth but I would have a hard time seeing how that lesson applies to my great great great great grandson. ... if he is part of my "posterity".

If you go back to the original post, what I was asking was the relevance of posterity, meaning people that are offspring that are many generations separated and on earth at a different time than that person, to that person in the afterlife. How and what value does "posterity" of the earthly kind bring to the person after this life? If one individual has a posterity of 100 and the other 1,000,000 offspring, is there a difference in the afterlife? How and why? Obviously, posterity meant something more to Abraham than just the ones he had as a circle of relationships in this life. And we are all "joined together" via Adam and Eve. So, is there such a thing as individual posterity?

I think Matthew's post says it pretty well ... just my 2 cents; I think if one does not understand the dual nature of our being then one has to come up with another way in which the spectrum of good versus evil is made. LDS believe that we are dual beings, part carnal of the earth created by the fall of Adam (our body, which includes the wiring of our brain) and part spiritual, created by God our Father. That is all that is needed to create the spectrum of choices ranging from evil (carnal natures - natural man) to good (spiritual natures - how valiant we are and our ability to recognize spiritual truth). The carnal nature of man is the default, this is why we say the natural man is an enemy to God and this is why Moses described man as nothing. So, if we do nothing to fight the slippery slope of our most influential self in this state, which is the carnal man, we become evil like the devil, becoming more and more self centered. The spiritual nature, which is our true self, is hidden behind the veil of our carnal being. As we become less innocent it becomes less influential in our lives. The removal of innocence is the process of reinforcing carnal drives, promoting them. Becoming like a child is to listen to spiritual influences more than carnal. The carnal being is stronger in its influence unless we learn to listen to the still small voice of the spirit and recognize our past learning. This is what creates the test. That challenge alone, between our carnal self and spiritual self is the battle alone, we don't need additional demons and angels to mix it up any further. Demons and angels are more involved in setting up the "instructions" of the test. They are involved in outlining the organized pathways of righteousness, i.e. the example of Christ and His church. Unless God needs me to help in the pathway development there is no need for any divine intervention as the test conditions are created by your dual being, carnal versus spiritual natures. As we learn line upon line, 'demons and angels' may represent an easier way to understand this dual being concept. Now, with the fullness of the gospel we have, we can understand this concept in a more exact way.

What I gather from this statement is that you think Earthly posterity doesn't matter as much as the "value of relationships". The more I discuss this, the more I get the perception that "posterity" doesn't mean much in this life. As we will all be connected, some a closer connection in terms of earthly time frame, because we will all be connected to Adam and Eve through the patriarchal order, then it won't matter who was grandson to whom and if one is a descendant of Joseph Smith versus Joe Hashimura. If I am a descendent of Joe Hashimura as opposed to Joseph Smith then I could still develop a close relationship with Joseph Smith in the next life. So, the whole earthly lineage and "posterity" really means nothing. If we are one family tree all connected to Adam and Eve, I don't see how anyone will have "more available" then anyone else.

Let me give another metaphor to help with what I am trying to understand. I think we can relate posterity to a family tree. If we are all part of the family tree related to Adam and Eve, then we are all connected in that way, if we uphold the covenants given us. I think we can agree on that. If that is the case, we are all on the same tree, does it matter where we are on that tree? Does it matter if we are close to the trunk and have many branches coming off of where we are at versus a tiny branch close to the top of the tree that has no offshoots? If we say that we benefit from this relationship no matter where we are at in the chain, forwards and backwards, offspring and ancestors, then I don't see how there is individual "posterity" as we are all part of the same family tree. Your tree is my tree. ... unless it matters where one is on the tree, close to the trunk versus a distant branch. If it matters where one is in the tree such as a major branch, where if one were to cut that branch the tree might die, then those that came before us are at an advantage, they have more "posterity". And those that die before having the ability or opportunity to bear children also would be at a disadvantage. So, it makes more sense to me that it doesn't matter where one is on the tree so long as they are a part of the tree. And if that is the case then there is no such thing as individual "posterity". My "posterity" (including the forward and backwards links) can be the same as Abraham's, in other words. That would then take out any genetic-proximity produced advantage.

To see where I am going, stretch that example you gave to your great great great great grandson in the future. Obviously, we are not taking about interpersonal relationships that are any more unique than one would have with anybody else. The only link in that case is genetic, which I am assuming is part of the word, posterity. Are you suggesting the word "posterity" only applies to those that we have personal relationships with in this life? I don't think you are. Then, certainly Abraham did not have much of a "posterity" if that is the case. If posterity has nothing to do with genetics or offspring from procreation, I am fine with that. Is that how everyone understands that? I would think most think it is related to offspring. In your last paragraph you are somewhat saying that even maybe people that are baptized by a set of missionaries would fall into that category of being their "posterity" as they were certainly influenced by them.

Thanks for your response. I guess I believe we will quickly return to our pre-mortal arrangement of one big family (divided into 3 kingdoms) with the possible addition of a spouse. What I would like to understand better is why would one of our past ancestors would use the possessive "my" posterity, or as you put it "can influence their posterity"? What would make them put value on "theirs" and not "ours" collectively? So, they are following their left behind genetic map, their blood line? There is some possessive value to that? What value does a blood line have over a non-blood line in the next life? (Of course, not taking about immediate family but distant family separated by generations) Abraham and Sarah show the importance of continuing a blood line to the point of trying to find other ways to get it, like Hagar. And obviously they were more concerned about the future posterity, not just immediate because they were satisfied with just one offspring to carry the bloodline. In the next life, if Abraham runs into an "offspring" that was born 1000 years later, what eternal value does he get from that that I wouldn't get from knowing that person? If the joy and blessing comes from the fact that maybe that person held the priesthood and followed the commandments, why wouldn't I as a member of that patriarchal order also feel the same joy for that individual without having the mortal bloodline link with that person? Is it just because there is something in common, like when a returned missionary finds another returned missionary that went to the same mission in a different decade? In other words, what eternal value is held within mortal genetic ties? (Again, not spiritual children or future spiritual eternal children etc.)

I missed this the first read through for some reason. Can you tell me where you got that information. This is very interesting and will likely be comforting to my friend.

What is the value for having sins "visible for all to see"? What value would I have to see the sin of some person living in ancient America 200 B.C.? I don't know if I would want to see all the horrible things done in this world that people didn't repent of, for the same reasons I hate to watch the evening news nowadays. It seems like that is an unnecessary thing.

It seems that the "posterity" discussion always turns into a "family tree" discussion when I have talked to my husband about this. I think it comes back to that every time. And since we are all part of the same family tree then in that sense, your posterity is my posterity etc. There is only one posterity, the Eternal family, or there is no posterity. It is not as individual as it comes across. It seems that there is only one Eternal Family or there is no family.

I agree that we can have the opportunity to build our kingdom but I would think that is referring to the potential for spiritual children. I am having a hard time appreciating how my great grandchild 10 generations from now (if there is such a thing) being so far removed from me would build any kingdom related to me. If the sealing is what provides us the sense of pride or glory, then how is that sealing any different between a great x10 grandson from earth versus any brother or sister I have in the Celestial Kingdom? I am assuming our sealing all the way back to Adam and Eve will make us all sealed together in that sense anyways. What does genetic link add to that when there is no personal relationship (unlike a child or grandchild)?

What, in the next life, is the value of everyone learning who did what in this life? I can see the value of sins not being kept in secret from the judge but I am not sure of the value of hearing every horrible sin ever committed in this world. I thought we weren't supposed to watch violence or sex on TV, etc., I think that same standard would be kept in the next life. ... I hope.

Thanks. I guess what I am getting at is trying to understand why Abraham or Joseph of Egypt would receive great posterity as a reward for their faith. What is it about having a large earthly posterity that makes it a reward more than just knowing that a lot of people will follow the commandments because of ones efforts. What about "posterity", the genetic kind, makes it valuable as opposed to all the people, for example, that Jesus Christ affected? Or does "posterity" really just mean all the people that receive the gospel as a result of one's effort in this life? ... not a genetic thing. If it is just referring to genetic posterity, I am not sure I see the carried-over-into-the-next-life value of having a large genetic posterity.

Questions about posterity. 1. Is “Posterity” the same thing as offspring? Does "posterity" have to be genetically related? 2. Outside our immediate family that we know here in this life, what is the value of our Earthly posterity in the next life? Would a distant family member, separated by many generations mean anything to us in the next life more than any other "brother" or "sister" we know? If so, why? Of course I understand the value of family and our personal relationships but why is there so much emphasis on earthly posterity or is it that “posterity” is referring to all the people we have an effect on in this life and in the future, not necessarily our “offspring”. Otherwise, I am not sure how it matters who my great great great grandson is that I will never meet in this life and will be my “brother” anyways in the next life. In other words, if a person is my great great great grandson in this life, will that make much of a difference to me if we are both fortunate enough to make it into the Celestial Kingdom? How would that relationship be different than any other person I might be in contact with in the Celestial Kingdom. I am having a hard time seeing the value of earthly posterity in the next life. Also, if there is some value to posterity, it would seem that those who are around early in the process have a greater posterity.

To find pleasure in the spiritual success of others is the root of charity. Also stemming from the admonition of Paul, "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." We should use the successes, praiseworthy and "good report" acts of our leaders as standards for our lives. I don't think we give praise to the person as much as we do their successes in this life as an example and standard for our lives. Also, how we treat a representative of Christ who has authority to do so, is a reflection of how we would treat Christ himself. This is why, for example, we treat missionaries with honor and respect, for who they represent while they are doing the Lord's work.

I also lean in this direction, maybe not as strongly. I think the range of good and evil choices in this world are set up by the influences of the body and the spirit. As a dual being, carnal influences (which Satan has power over) compete with spiritual make up (which Satan does not have direct power over). I agree that Satan doesn't have to have an immediate affect or relevancy in anybody's life because it is done through the carnal nature of our immortal body set up by the Fall of Adam. God can be distant too, as this life is a test and we have learned all we can from God in the pre-mortal life save the value of this test experience gained from this life. So, we are supposed to be using the spiritual influences we have already obtained through our previous learning, we don't have to be fed new answers, just listen to the ones we already have. It is similar to taking a test in the classroom, the chalk board is erased, the text books are closed, but we still get some basic instruction for taking the test and can have some questions answered during the test, if needed.

I find it interesting that you didn't highlight the word "copy" even though it was used several times in the list you gave. For some reason, "copy" is less satisfying than the idea that man Adam was made in the beginning 'somewhat like him'. Knowing too that He does the same things over and over, the same way, I think "copy" is probably the best word out of that list.

Thanks, I can appreciate that. What is the significance of being in the image of Adam then? Are you saying, then, that being in the "image" equates to having a beloved status? It doesn't have anything to do with appearance? Are we supposed to then relate that to how we are in the "image" of God? In other words, it just has to do with being loved by God and not appearance?

Retrieving the ipad can only be called a blessing if one keeps in mind that where much is given much is required. Otherwise it becomes a curse, a source for receiving many stripes. The inequalities of the world also have to be taken with the knowledge that God knows what was given and expects something different from those that are given more. Sometimes, what we call "blessings" are really just opportunities to serve more and have the opportunity to be a steward over more things. The unjust steward looks at these things we have compared to those in Somalia as the end of the story, as a blessing without added responsibility as if they "own" the blessing, it is just a stewardship. Why some are given certain stewardships in this life compared to others has to do of God's knowledge of us in the pre-mortal life, knowing what stewardships we need individually to accomplish the things He wants us to do here. That is not anything we can figure out in this life, we can't look at someone at determine why they were given specific stewardships or lack of a stewardship in this life. For that same reason we can't judge how difficult one set of stewardships would be over another without knowing the spiritual make up of that person carrying the stewardship. I think the first step in comprehending inequalities in this life is to first have a belief that where much is given much is required. The second step is to appreciate the idea that we revealed our needs, at least in part, through being valiant or not so valiant to an all knowing God before this life began.

I agree, this is the bottom line, we are all grandchildren of God but this doesn't help any when it comes to "image" or appearance because Adam's body was changed with the fall. One possible difference is the introduction of variability with offspring. Why are Seth and Able described as being in the image of Adam and the other sons not? Is it because "image" doesn't have anything to do with appearance, maybe just describing spirituality or is it because the other sons had enough of a varied change from the original copy that they lost the status of being in the "image"? So, if "image" is just spirituality, then being created in God's image is mostly implying that we have the same potential as God as the phrase "we're all grandchildren of God" implies. If "image" really is appearance then I assume there is a certain 'standard deviation' off that image that can be lost even in one generation. Then, how far off are we, being that many generations off the original?

I think tied into point #2 is the opportunity to reveal our true natures. For some, I suppose, the aspect of their true nature that needs to be revealed in this life may require specific challenges. They may not appreciate it in this life or comprehend it in this life but our 'true nature' doesn't necessarily require conscious application of knowledge, it may be spiritual natures that are revealed by simply enduring as much as possible. My brother who has served in Iraq has shared stories explaining his surprise at how people were different in certain situations than what they said they would do back in training if they were in those situations. That situation revealed a lot about one's physical nature at least. I am sure God gathers proof of our spiritual natures in a similar manner of specific challenges and situations that are unique to our individual needs. In other words, choosing the right answer 'on paper' is not the test we are facing here, we did that with keeping our first estate, now we are revealing our true choice through how we respond to our specific condition.

I like one of the scriptures already given, Ether 3:15 " And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own cimage? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image." I would put emphasis on "in the beginning". A lot has changed since then including the effects of the fall.