Seminarysnoozer

This seems to be the most common message, which I agree with too. ... "You could see the light of the Spirit in their eyes." In other words, the outside doesn't matter, it is spiritual beauty that matters. That goes along with the message that there is no need to maintain our variable physical appearances into the next life as most would agree that it is the spiritual beauty that matters. Physical uniqueness is not what made that couple beautiful. Physical uniqueness is not needed in the world to come, at least the highest level of the kingdom, from what I can tell. Seeing true beauty, as this wonderful example so stated, is one of recognizing spiritual beauty not physical differences or uniqueness.

It's 'her', by the way. Make sure not to take this out of context, I was referring to carry on the mark into the next life, not this one. I agree that we carry on the mark of our ancestors in the body we currently have, that was a point I was making but after judgement and after we receive our glory by becoming resurrected beings I don't see why that 'mark' would continue, after restitution has been made and accounted for. Vort, this is exactly one of the reasons I find this topic interesting. I agree, I see in the gospel this need to maintain blood line information for some reason but it isn't talked about very much. I have pondered the significance of what it means to Jesus to be the son of David. Being the Son of God seems to be a little better understood. And why there might be the effect of sins of one generation carried on. Or to receive the priesthood based in one's lineage. But, I think your second paragraph there is more exact, there are "spiritual" intimacies with progenitors and descendants, not that we have to maintain genetic intimacies. In the end, most of us are adopted into the covenant anyways, I don't see how genetics matters much at that point. I don't think though that we will be judged by our relatives actions if we have done all that we can or if they did something before we were around. I don't think Lehi will be punished for Laman and Lemuel's sins for example. And there were many righteous 'lamanites' that followed and are descendents of Laman. During this life, I agree that the blessings and grief we bring by our choices can extend to generations in both directions but if I cause grief or lack of blessings in either direction that will have to be paid for by me at some point, this life or the next, not by them. If I fail to do my genealogy and miss the opportunity to perform ordinances for family members, they may suffer in waiting for a while but I will have to ultimately pay the price for that negligence. If I fail to teach my children well, that may extend many generations into the future, but I will be responsible for that, not them.

I see "healthy and whole" related to structure and function. In other words, appearance, in part, relates to health. Look at the effects of body habitus on health, physical mechanics. I think once all those corrections are made to make it perfectly "healthy and whole" including all the physical wiring of the brain (neuroanatomy) that the plan for that perfect body would look pretty similar, I would think that the physical structure to perform all the duties of potential Godhood would require a set of physical characteristics that would be included in resurrection. Of course, I can't say what that is but I don't think it includes much random variables found in this life or driven by sinful acts in this life. (i.e. - my skin may not be light brown forever and remain a certain height and body habitus because my great, great, great, great grandfather who came from Spain had an affair with a woman of native central American descent - we all have something like that in our genetics somewhere.) I am not going to carry the mark of all of my ancestors choices forever, that doesn't make sense to me.

What is the value of different appearance to you then? What is the value of "different" to you, such that you would want that to continue in the next life?

Got the hair and the eyes flipped. lol

I agree, it is kind of like having money, either end of the spectrum is difficult. And, similar to money, if one develops a love for it I think it can be just as damming in this life. If one glories of themselves because they have a 6'10'' body from which they have made millions of dollars playing basketball etc. (throw in your own example how certain physical features could be advantageous) they would do best to not grow too attached to those temporary 'talents' given to them only to see if they are good stewards (not owners). I steward who claims to be the owner is not a good steward.

I don't know what those "perfect" features are anymore than I know the true character of God. I say it does matter, I never said it didn't. I am saying if people say things like, "it doesn't matter what a person looks like" then they also won't mind if they don't look the same in the next life, you can't have it both ways. If one does care what they look like then they tend to love themselves and want to hold onto that image or that uniqueness. I guess I am talking more about our goal, our direction, not our current status. The thing about resurrection though is that we believe we will receive our perfected body and never be separated from it again. Now, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean the appearance of that body can't change over time but I guess I am assuming the appearance of that body will be fixed. I think the different parts and purposes can be satisfied by other Kingdoms, where their bodies may differ, like the differences of the stars, but as far as the Celestial kingdom, receiving one body the glory of Sun, I can't see how there would be much variability there, especially as those people approach perfect oneness with God and the Lord.

Anyone who calls someone else a hypocrite should have the authority to do so, otherwise it falls under every other situation where we are not to judge others. According to the definition you gave, it is in part related to one's beliefs. If we can prove a person's beliefs by their actions then maybe we could call someone a hypocrite. But we know that none of us are perfect, so our actions don't always represent our beliefs. Then, how can you know what a person believes? We can't. Therefore, we can never really call someone a hypocrite unless somehow there is power given to be a judge over that individual (i.e - the prophet, Jesus, etc.). Many outside religion call religious people hypocrites because they don't live 100% their faith. According to your definition there it doesn't require living it 100%, just that one's beliefs (not actions) are not in opposition to one's goals. So long as you don't pretend to have a religious belief you don't really have then it is not hypocrisy, according to that definition. For example, if someone represented themselves as Mormon when they are not (like a popular Broadway show, for example) then that would be hypocrisy.

Pretty much everything in the gospel suggests that we are on the same track, maybe different points on the track but we all end up eating the same fruit. ... iron rod, narrow path, straightway. We currently live in a world where diversity is valued and desired and I believe that can be a good thing for this world. It allows for many different talents and interests to be shared. Where we are heading with this though, I get the impression, is like an arrowhead, heading towards the sharp point. We start out diverse but head towards one point, not the other way around. ... if the arrowhead represents how similar we are (not knowledge, experience etc.) Look at it this way, if we are fortunate enough to make it into the celestial kingdom, what special feature would you have or anyone there have that our Father wouldn't have? All differences and "uniqueness" come from imperfections or deficiencies. My goal is not imperfections and so uniqueness is not my goal. If 2 people in the ages of time to come have worked on perfecting themselves, eventually, it will be harder and harder to tell those two people apart just like it is hard to distinguish the Son from the Father. I don't think remaining distinguished and unique should be our goal or desire. Of course, nobody is perfect here, so we still hold onto those 'uniqueness' drives but we try to push them aside. I think we are so far from it that it is hard to imagine but at the same time we don't want to look backwards.

I would think that most of us have the goal of making it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom which is to obtain all that God has. If we all desire to have all that God has, what is left out? To have uniqueness requires the fact that some have some traits that others don't. Either we want to have some things that others don't or we want to be in a place where all will have all (at some point). In other words, our desire would be that we would all be the same. I believe the people that make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom have in their hearts that they be one with God and have all that He has and everyone around them the same, not that some have deficiencies in certain areas that stay that way forever. I truly do not see how some having something different, whatever feature that is, that others find value in and others do not have is beautiful. If one says, it doesn't matter what the outside is, then it also wouldn't matter that there are unique features either. So, to you the uniqueness is valuable but by saying so then you also find it valuable that some people are deficient in certain areas. In other words, it is beautiful that we all can't have it all?

It sounds like you and your wife, then, don't share the same views as to what is attractive. You look at the inside and she is holding onto what is on the outside, according to the limited information you gave in this example. (I am sure she looks at the inside too, but you gave an example of her holding onto the bald attraction) I don't think it can be both ways, either there is value to appearance or there is not. Even if it is some small portion of value to the outside, there is still some. People here are trying to say that there is no value to the outside, 0% value. And yet examples are given all the time that people want to hold onto their uniqueness or a certain trait. I don't think it can be both ways, either there is some value to appearance or there is not in the next life.

The way one looks is based, at least in part, in the randomness of genetics. ... autosomal recessive or dominant traits etc. So, there are some things traits that get passed on 25% of the time on purpose that God just makes it look random? And those are the traits we get forever?

That was a question, just didn't put the question mark after it, sorry.

Then you are saying that there are some things that are just random that God has no control over.

The thirteen Articles of Faith is a cliff notes version of our beliefs. A "working knowledge" of course would only be obtained by living the principles of the faith.

Then, maybe this same thing happens when people play the lottery or go to Vegas to gamble. Or, how about when I hire an undocumented worker to do a job because it is cheaper. There is not an absolute right or wrong, depends on how we feel about it. Being financially independent and thrifty at the expense of others is not right. I think one has to always look at the bigger picture, not just how it affects their own family.

Yes, when there is some kind of transformation or being removed from our current state. 'Seeing' through physical eyes is limited, 'seeing' through spiritual eyes is what can be described as a vision. Dreaming is a 'physical' process and therefore seen through the physical body. Dreaming is not a vision. Although, one might be inspired by their dreams but that isn't necessarily a vision. We can be inspired by a dog walking down the street, that doesn't mean the dog was metaphysical in any way. This whole thing is confusing because in the scriptures the word 'dream' is used to mean a vision. The scriptures are not using the word that we commonly use to mean what happens in REM sleep.

Okay, I can accept that, thanks. Tell me where you got the description that the world and that the Garden of Eden was a "terrestrial" type creation. Where can I find that described in that way? Specifically, where can I find it written that Adam and Eve were created as Terrestrial beings in the Garden of Eden? ... we lived with our Father before we came here too.

The spirit world means they are not resurrected yet. And the Celestial kingdom vision doesn't say that they looked different, just that he recognized them which shouldn't prove that they look different. I am sure we recognize each other on a spiritual level. If it was physical recognition, how did we differentiate each other before this life, we had no physical body. I think this discussion falls into the broader category of struggle between the seeking of self centered goals verses a collective goal. Satan sought glory for himself which goes against how the system works the best which is the fact that we can't receive glory on our own, even God's glory is dependent on bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man, which is not self centered. The idea of maintaining uniqueness and differences from others, 'stand out from the crowd', 'be yourself' is a satanic idea in that it focuses on self. The gospel of Christ, in general, is a message of being one with Christ and God and treating everyone equal with love, to not focus on self. That was Christ' last prayer that we be one with Him as He is one with His Father. We can choose whether we like the idea of uniqueness (whether that is maintained or not, I don't know) or forsake the things of this world. The struggle and confusion occurs when we hold on to things of this world in our hearts. God does not see people as the world sees people, the world looks at the outside where God looks at what is inside. The outside is just a temporary state, that is not who you really are.

Where do you get that He chose to do it that way? He made Adam and Eve, He didn't make 3 or 4 couples, like 'primary colors' from which many different varieties could be made. The Fall is what created the variability, which is a part of degradation and corruption from the original creation. The Atonement allows for recovery from the Fall situation in all respects. We know why He allowed this to happen, it is part of the test, as you can see from the OP. There is struggle and challenge in this way. It is part of the test. When the test is over we won't be in test conditions any longer. Most of the responses here are focused on dealing with the test here, which is fine but the OP is struggling with the idea that the test will continue onto the next life and can't see how that is fair. The test won't continue, we will enter into His rest, as far as that goes. If one finds variability something they can't live without there is such a Kingdom, 'as the stars vary one from another'. (note: variability is different from variety)

Thanks for your answer, I am wondering why you are saying they were created in a Terrestrial world when we know that God's presence wont be with the Terrestrial kingdom. Adam and Eve were in Gods presence while in the Garden. We know they were in a paradisaical state. We are just comparing that to degrees of glory of course but wouldn't it compare better to Celestial, as they are in God's presence?

Maybe we could, I don't know but why? What is the value of uniqueness especially in a group of people that are all trying to be like God in every way? Is there a reason for uniqueness in the next life? Why would one person be taller than another for example? You might say, 'it doesn't matter'. Well then, if it doesn't matter then probably one person wouldn't be taller than another. There would be no reason for variability. At least in this world one could make an argument for variability, for survival. Certain traits do better in certain circumstances. There will be none of that in the next life. If I need X amount of melanin in my skin that is what I am going to have, just like everyone else, etc. This is what I am saying, there is a desire to hold onto 'differences' and 'uniqueness' but there is no reason to, I think that comes from the same place that somebody calls someone else beautiful in this world. If there is no categorization of beauty, then there also is no need to have external uniqueness.

If you think this is beautiful (which is great) .... you haven't seen nuthin yet. The Kingdoms of glory far surpass any earthly beauty. Even the lowest is beyond full description. .... I think this will apply to our physical appearance too, we look back at our current appearance and say, I can't believe I wanted to hold onto that. I remember driving a 1976 Ford Pinto coup to High School thinking I was pretty cool. I don't know if I would feel "cool" driving that thing now, haha. I don't think our bodies and everything around is not beautiful but in comparison I think we will realize that it is silly to hold onto things of this world.

As one who has studied neuroanatomy, I am not sure where this idea comes from that 'we have more capacity then we use' is out there. I think there is a perception that parts of the brain lay dormant and not being used. That is impossible, brain cells die off if not being used. By the time a person reached puberty, typically, we have the most brain cells we are intended to have as those not being used have died off. The only way to increase the use of "brain capacity" in the sense that I think everyone is trying to say with that term is by having a totally different brain. ... which may be the case in resurrection, that may be how we obtain 'perfect knowledge' with the resurrection, it is hard-wired into the brain we receive. A computer may have the capacity to run various programs but if you turned them on all at the same time, the computer would freeze. Our brains are similar, we may have the capacity to do certain things at any given time but it wasn't intended to run all the things at the same time, maybe that is where the perception is that we have unused capacity. But, again, to do that we would need a totally different type of brain. I think the truth to the capacity issue, is that people realize, through the light of Christ, that we are a fallen people, our bodies have less capacity compared to our spiritual capacity and so the perception is that it is our brain that we are not using, where really it is the mismatch between the spirit and the body.

In that case, then, I think if a person lives all the principles of the gospel in this life then all knowledge will be poured out to them at that moment. Through the resurrection we will have all knowledge, a perfect knowledge. We may not have all the experience but knowledge would be perfect. Progression, then, at that point would just be in terms of experience, which overlaps with knowledge but we would know all things as they are to be, just a matter of jumping through those hoops.