Seminarysnoozer

Amen to most everything you say here (except Terrestrial bodies idea and seeds brought from another world - could have just been patterns brought here, i.e. - DNA, RNA). I am wondering where you get that God created Adam and Eve as Terrestrial bodies? Is there a source for that information? So, God can 'walk and talk' with Terrestrial bodies? I thought it was common belief that God walked and talked with Adam in the garden. Also, Adam (Michael) was celestial before getting the body, wasn't he?

If that first sentence is true, then nobody would care if we all looked exactly the same in the next life either, as the outside wouldn't matter. Ask most people on this forum and they are appalled at the idea that we could all look the same, so the outside really does matter to them. We can't have it both ways, either the outside matters and therefore we should maintain our current appearance in the next life or the outside doesn't matter and so all looking the same would not be a problem.

I think there is a perception that the brain is shut off during sleep and so the spirit can somehow reveal itself more readily during sleep, that is false. The brain uses as much energy at night as it does during the day. If anything, the random, imaginative, "what-if" parts of the brain are not kept in check by the logical parts of the brain and so what can be revealed is the random functions of the brain that are there even when a person is awake, we are just not aware of them. A dream, also, is only remembered if a person happens to wake up out of a dream and stay awake. If a person happens to wake up out of a dream and go back to sleep within seconds then memory is erased as to that dream. A person who dreams a lot or vivid dreams, therefore, often times has fragmented sleep or poor quality, "light" sleep.

What exactly does that mean to 'understand clearly all the things we have done'? Does that mean we will clearly understand what was done and what wasn't, just a list of actions or does it mean that we will fully understand why it was right or wrong? What versus Why... of course "Why" would also have to include "What" so really it is a question of whether 'perfect knowledge' includes just the "What" or is it "What + Why". For example, if I choose not to participate in Eternal Marriage and the covenants thereof (this is a made up example), I will upon my resurrection understand all the principles and laws surrounding Eternal Marriage and the eternal reasons for eternal marriage and everything that comes of it and what was lost by not participating in it or will I just know that I lost X amount of glory without fully understanding why?

Thanks. This is exactly what I was wondering about. I can see this like getting the report card at the end of a course where all you get is the information regarding what you got right and what was marked wrong but the correct answers aren't yet given. Here, perfect knowledge is just knowing the magnitude of what was done right or wrong, not the why. The other interpretation would be one of fully understanding the laws and principles of every action to know reasons behind why something was right or wrong, a perfect knowledge. Here, perfect knowledge includes the why it was good or bad. I still kind of lean towards the later interpretation as I don't know if we will really understand the significance of any given sin or righteousness without fully understanding the laws and principles surrounding it.

The guy was one tough leader of the Nephite army, as the name implies. ...like naming your kid 'Rambo'. (just kidding of course)

So, are you saying that the "perfect knowledge" is just a perfect understanding of our status with God? It is not an understanding then of the actual sin or righteous act, it is like getting a report card without necessarily getting the answers to the final exam, just the score. I guess I have always considered this a time where you get to see where the mistakes were and what the correct answers were, not just fully understanding how much you got wrong and right.

I guess I look at 'conversion' knowledge as being heavily faith based, whereas this description of what happens with the resurrection sounds more like knowing because it is revealed at that moment. This is also 'perfect knowledge' of our righteousness and enjoyment not just guilt. My sense is that this is the moment faith is not needed, all is known. The question is what entails "all"? Is "all" just another word for perfect and so it doesn't really mean 'everything' or does "all" mean everything there is to know on the subject?

The memory passed on to others will also die with that person and on and on, in that scenario. Eventually the sun will explode and all that work will be for nothing all will be destroyed and forgotten. At a minimum as the millions of years go by the memory of what any one person did will be as little as what fisherman Jens did in his life, 300 B.C. You remember him right? It means nothing. You don't remember the joy he had when he met his wife or saw the birth of his first child or what he taught his children. You don't remember when he saved someones life or when he killed a neighbor's son. Nobody in this life remembers him .... as if it never happened. All the reasons you point out for people doing good in this life is because within their heart (which is to say their spirit), even if it is just a small feeling, not knowledge yet, believe that there is something more to this life, their spirits tell them that. Prove that wrong. You can't. It would be like if you were told now that you before this life lived in another world at another time and you had a family there and some of your descendents are still around but you know nothing of that previous world. Do you have any feelings towards that previous world that you know nothing about? Does it matter to you whether anyone maintained any memory about your existence or what you did in that world? No, because you are not even aware of it. That is how it will be, by their own description, after the atheist dies from this world ... it won't matter to them one way or the other if they did evil, good or in between. It can't matter because there is nothing left to reason with afterwards. If a person develops Alzheimers in this life and looses all memory of previous events, some of which they never told anyone, then for the atheist, that experience is gone forever at that moment. Even the shortcomings of our own memory doesn't allow us to remember everything we did when we were young. Memory, by the way, is not a video recording of past events, it is directly tied into the emotional significance of the event. So, in the atheist mind, memory is reality. The murderer whose brain tries to cope with the horrible things that were done convinces himself that he didn't do it, really believes that he didn't do it, becomes reality for him. The person that convinces themselves that they didn't really tell a lie or that they really didn't steal, in their mind then that is reality. There is no higher law but the perceptions of own actions. So, happiness is just based in our own laws of ourselves, we judge ourselves. ... is the way I see the atheist morals. Suppose, if I convince myself, in my own mind that killing thousands of a certain people is happiness, then I will be happy if I do that thing since there is no moral standard outside one's own understanding. If I am taught as a youth that the most righteous thing I can do is to strap a bomb to my chest and kill as many as possible, being judged by my own made up standards then that will bring happiness to that person and all the family and friends around him that believe the same way ... so good for them, right? So, an atheist would morally support whatever that person thinks would bring them happiness, isn't that right? An atheist would support terrorism and suicide bombings etc. If my family is poor and I am close to death anyways and I devise a plan to rob a bank, give the money to my family not telling them where it came from and I die immediately after doing that, there would be good from that in the atheist's mind, right? The person who died, doesn't remember, the family is not poor any longer and they have no idea where the money came from ... all is good, right? The argument for atheism with morals is what, to me is in question. I could accept atheism without morals, that would make sense to me. Otherwise to me that is nonsense. I could be wrong, I have been wrong many times before, this is just how I see it. I am trying to let you know that if a person does something "good" without seeking personal reward and that feels right to them, that in and of itself is proof of a higher law, or a spirit within that directs what is right versus wrong and the significance it holds as to the purpose of this life.

What is the “perfect knowledge of all our …” mean? Does it mean that we will just have knowledge of what we personally did or does that include a knowledge of all the laws and principles surrounding our guilt, righteousness, enjoyment, etc.? “the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge…” sounds like we will know "all" at the point of our resurrection. In other words, does this “perfect knowledge” leave out anything? What is not included in “perfect knowledge”? And, does this knowledge only include things surrounding our individual lives or all life? Think of a person who died in infancy, if isolated to that person's life only there would not be much added at the point of resurrection. If this is just knowledge surrounding one's own events in this world that seems to suggest a motivation to fill one's life with various experiences to eventually receive a perfect knowledge of those things. But that also suggests a disproportionate distribution of knowledge based on the privilege of experience in this life. 2 Nephi 9: 13-14 13O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect. 14Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

I agree with everything you say in this last post with the exception of this paragraph but it is not a big difference. It depends on what physical you are talking about. In the scriptures there is description of "physical" that is talking about the resurrected state of physical body plus spirit which is different than talking about our current situation. One thing to keep in mind is that we are in a fallen state, in terms of intellect, knowledge, awareness etc. The question is how far one thinks we have fallen. Our spirit maintains the memories of things learned in pre-earthly life, it just cant access them because of the veil. The body also drives us towards carnal desires and directly opposes the spiritual drives. I hope that the body, as my life goes on is less in control and the spirit drives desires more. If one really believes that we learned all we could before needing to obtain a body, I would imagine there is no amount of secular knowledge or intellectual prowess of anyone who has ever lived or will live in this existence that could come close to matching our spirits knowledge. As soon as we die that will all come back to us. The only need to pursue secular knowledge is to advance the work of God not for the sake of learning again something that we have likely already learned and will remember after death. If the learning will allow us to work on our faith more than that is a worthwhile pursuit. There are many advancements in this world that allow us to be more productive in the spreading of the gospel, like this computer, etc. and therefore are worthwhile. ... more on this latter if you want to talk about it, I have to go. I guess the summary of what I am trying to say is that the importance of spiritual discovery far outweighs the importance of secular learning. ... which is what I think you are also saying by pointing out the importance of faith. I don't see those as equal sides of the coin, per se, one side is heavier than the other.

I think the concept that is missing here is to know that we are mostly judged by the desires of our heart. Are we perfect about it, no but we strive to do all things with an 'eye single to the glory of God'. If I give to a charity so I can write it off my taxes, that is different then living the commandment of tithing because my eye is single to the glory of God. If I essentially live the word of wisdom because I am taking a medication that doesn't let me drink alcohol and I realize that smoking can cause cancer, that is different than living the word of wisdom out of obedience to God's laws. If I am caught in a house fire and break through a wall to save my own skin and two people happen to follow me out as well I may be praised by media for saving two people's lives but that is different than breaking through the wall with the intention of saving two people's lives to God and should be different to us. In both cases it is a good thing that will bring happiness but the later brings happiness for eternity. The reasons we do things, 'the desires of our heart' is just as important as the act itself. I think that is the piece of this discussion that you are missing in understanding the LDS viewpoint. The 'happiness' that we get temporally, earthly happiness, is in doing these things we are told with an eye single to the glory of God. I take care of my family with hope that they will be with me for the eternities, I hope they will do well so they can have that kind of happiness. I may seek to do well in all things, work, education, physical fitness etc. with an eye single to the glory of God, so that I can be a better tool in His hands to carry out His work on Earth, that is happiness. If the goal is personal consumption, to me that is not happiness. If one does not believe in a higher cause a higher purpose, it is impossible to have that desire in the heart with whatever morally good and right act done on Earth. Even though it may be the same act, it is of lesser value when not done with the right purpose. Are all LDS doing everything with the right purpose in mind, of course not. I, myself, have not mastered that, not even close, but I try. If one focuses on the value of an act that relates to the momentary benefit of the act that is not the same as keeping the desires of the heart focused on God's eternal purposes. For example, I take joy in living the word of wisdom not only for temporal benefits but knowing that I am being obedient and the blessings that come from doing it for the right reasons. D&C 82; 18And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church— 19Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God." 3 Nephi 13: " 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! 24No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."

You didn't read the words carefully enough. I am using the word reason to mean 'purpose'. That doesn't mean I can't be happy in this life, I am very happy. I am happy in part because I know that this life is not the end, it is not a fleeting moment for me. Our current happiness (even supported by those scripture references you gave, thanks) is dependent on putting our motivations in the right place "that they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness". Yes, that gives me current happiness and current blessing but dependent on maintaining my focus on the eternal blessings, so no I do not do it for the current blessings. I am talking about the reasons behind doing certain things in this life, the motivation, the purpose. That isn't to say that good things will not come from it. Maybe better stated is that the primary reason is for heavenly treasure not earthly reward. I didn't say that there can be a reward for doing well, there is, but I hope that I receive the reward in the next life. The reward comes from having my heart set on eternal treasures. The distraction of my poor words, maybe, pulled you away from my point, I am sorry. The point is that it seems a contradiction to seek pleasure in things that will be erased completely in a few years. I am saying that if a person truly did not believe in an afterlife, I do not comprehend how this life would have any value to them at all after they are dead. When that person is dead, if that concept is true, they will have no feeling as to the matter, good or bad. The only way that I can make sense of that is if they really do believe in an afterlife in their heart of hearts to some small degree, even if they deny it, the spiritual sense of what really our situation is. To me that is why there is a sense of doing good now. That is how I can explain it to myself, I am sorry if that offends you. If you want to explain it to me fine, go ahead, I am willing to hear, instead of berating me for trying to explain these contradictions that I see. I can't have you correct me on these apparent contradictions unless I say what I think they are. (That is not telling people what they believe) You tell me exactly, then (since it seems that you are claiming to understand that point of view) what value does this life have to that person after they are dead, not now, AFTER THEY ARE DEAD, what value does this life have to the person who is dead? That person who is dead is not going to have any feeling of guilt or pleasure or anything in between as to how well they did or if anyone benefited from their existence or not, nor will they retain any memory of their earthly pleasures of any kind, so how could it matter to that person? If I told you I would pay for the vacation of your life, 2 weeks on a warm private beach somewhere with all the best food, any activity you wanted to do, no worries but in the end I would erase all memory of you having done that and anyone around you would not retain any memory of you having done that as if it never happened, you would find some value in that experience?

Pretty much everything we have in this life is temporary, this is a temporary existence from which we are given 'stewardship' over certain things to see if we can be worthy enough to take care of bigger things. Stewardship does not mean ownership and that includes our bodies. We, of course, are promised a resurrected body after going through this life, that becomes ours. We know that people who have more obvious deforming characteristics such as being born without arms or having trisomy 21 etc., will have their bodies made whole. Wouldn't you say that a Trisomy 18 baby probably wouldn't look the same in the next life? The support to my argument would be to ask, which one of us doesn't have a corrupted body that would need correction? If you read my posts in this thread I have outlined my basic reasons for thinking that we won't maintain specific characteristics but the form will continue, the part that allows us to be described as being in the image of God. The 'image' of God is not a certain hair color, height, weight, skin color etc. otherwise only certain people would be in the image of God. So, one could maintain the 'image of God' in the resurrected body and be a different height, weight, skin color, shape of the face etc. without changing that fact. To me, being created spiritually does not include the exact dimensions of the features we find in ourselves right now. If that were the case, what did the third look like that followed Satan, a blob? Satan himself had no specific appearance? And, again, all those that end up with very deformed bodies here looked like that before they came? If you say 'no', then it is possible that we all looked like a perfect image of a body before we came here which may be totally different than the specific way we look now. We spent, I believe, a lot more time in our pre-earthly form than our earthly form by far, and into the future this time will seem like a little blip of time if that. I think the idea that we look the same as we did here, just improved, is one of those things that sounds comfortable to us but has no basis or reason or has been described in the gospel but many take it for being likely.

Why are mormons so weird?

Haha, no, I've never seen the movies. Thanks for your response. I would imagine, taking into account the 100 billion people who have ever lived in the world (or whatever number it is) that most of the bodies that need resurrection are completely gone, they are dust. I don't think the majority of people will have much to work with. Is there some perceived benefit of maintaining genetics in the next life, other than convenience for God (if that were really the case)? They don't have to be 'all new genes' He already made them in Adam and Eve. The work has already been done in that respect.

Sorry to put you on the spot, because a lot of people feel the same way but since you said it ... Why is it that you enjoy the idea that you will maintain some features from this life? I think it is important to point out that that idea is not part of our gospel, at least I don't see it anywhere pointed out that specifically, that we maintain our genetic make up. (I could be wrong, but haven't found it)

It is not the same reason, not even close. The reason LDS do what they consider to be right is not for earthly reward at all. It is not because I will be merry in this life. I may suffer even more by doing what is right in this life and I will still do it. LDS try to avoid the concept of eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Have you ever played a video game that doesn't keep the score stored somewhere? Life would be like that video game if one doesn't believe in an after life. Sure, you could try to earn a lot of points during the game but after it is over the score is erased, so, in the end there is no productive value to the game other than to entertain, enjoy the moment, etc. Add on top of that, not even remembering the game after it is played, then it really serves no purpose at all. That is the atheist view of life. If one does not believe in an afterlife, then they must also believe that the moment they die all that occurred in this life, to them, no longer exists as if it never happened. If one really believed that there is no consequence to any action in this life that extends beyond this life as it will all turn to forgotten the moment anyone dies then there is only temporary morality and purpose that only exists for the now. I realize the argument is that the person would want others around them to experience happiness temporarily. Why? that, according to that belief will be lost too. There is nothing of lasting value to that belief. In that scenario, if one thinks they could 'get away with it' then there is no reason to avoid a lie to get gain, cheat to get gain, suppress someone else to get gain for themselves or their family. In that view, Hitler would be a hero, he rose from not having much to having most of Europe, at least in his case maybe it would be a good thing that he doesn't remember anything he did in this life. To do right is based in what we believe to provide the greater amount of happiness for everyone not based in fear of punishment or based in earthly reward. My argument earlier was that it is not true that the atheist believe 100% that there is not God. Their mind might believe that but their spirit and the little amount of the light of Christ in them still tells them there must be more, that is why they still want to do what is right for them and family. If one did not believe in God 100% there would be absolutely no reason to do right, the only driving force would be momentary self gratification.

We are talking about the story of creation which by and far is more amazing and wonderful than how someone travels around. If you really believe in the story of creation I don't think it is hard to understand that God could place Adam and Eve wherever in the world after being "kicked out". A movement from one place to another is less amazing. That is like interviewing someone about climbing mount Everest and you wonder if they started with their left or right foot, it's a minor part of the story that really doesn't matter. I think it is okay to wonder, but please don't let that cause any detraction from the purpose of the story. ... and realize, likely, you and probably everyone will only learn this information after this life is over.

I suppose if you confine "improvement" to those three categories, which are arbitrary categories made up by someone, "morally, physically, intellectually" then I suppose He may not "improve". But, where is glory in all of this. What category does glory fall into? Do you not think God's glory increases? Maybe if you change your "historic" idea into something more truthful, then you could see how there is increase and improvement. According to your confined view of what qualifies for improvement (morally, physical, intellectual), even Christ reached His pinnacle before He started His ministry. In that case, His works after the ministry started did not add anything. Unless, you think Christ "learned" something after He started His ministry in terms of moral, physical or intellectual knowledge. I know its hard to swallow, but works are important. At a minimum I suppose I could argue within your confined view of what constitutes improvement that if God creates another world then He might have improved "physically".

His glory is the immortality and Eternal Life of man and is one big round, yes. I know you believe in being "one". Gods works are without end, is that not part of your beliefs? Even if we are just talking about God here, how do you put together a God without an end to His works and yet is perfect which you are suggesting is complete? His works are not complete, they are not finished, they progress.

What is 'plausible' is not a search based in faith. Spiritual matters are not understood well with the carnal mind. That search for what is 'plausible' according to the laws of the carnal world is a dead end in terms of understanding these spiritual matters. What kind of test would this world be if we had all the answers in front of us? If one doesn't think this life is a test then there is no need to understand anything about religion in the first place, especially mormonism. So, one thing to come to grips with in this search for understanding is to realize that you won't get all the answers in this life. ... otherwise, that would be a terrible way to test. The test being a measure of one's true nature revealed by faith based choices, not one's intellectual reasoning via the carnal mind. Choosing to only believe those things that are tangible or fully understood by the mind reveals one's true nature. A source of enlightenment to learn to trust more is through the spirit or what we sometimes call the light of Christ. Faith is the first area to 'study', then you can understand our beliefs the best.

I, for one, don't believe that a limitation in progress (the definition of 'progress' is not clear here, personal progress or works or offspring, I think you are only refering to personal progress) is damnation. I don't see how you are equating 'perfection' with a lack of progress. Unless one's definition of 'progress' is limited to knowledge or understanding. Progress can continue in terms of works. God's works are without end. They continue to progress, that is why His glory is endless. By being a part of those endless works, Eternal progression can continue. Imagine if you had children and they had children and you knew that the family you started would continue on forever and expand with each generation. And all those family members you knew well and would share in their happiness and success. Part of the glory of God is that He shares in the success of all that are a part of His family, similar to what we do here. If God were to measure His glory by His own achievements only then you are right, that would be damnation, that is exactly what Satan suggested, let me do it on my own. This is, in part, why 'family' is such a key part of our gospel. It is to give us a chance to understand how God works His works in a little way and to develop a love for that kind of way. People who don't like that kind of system, where they can't enjoy the successes of others unless they have it themselves are not in alignment with those that make it to the Celestial Kingdom, these are people who make themselves #1 in this life. If you look at "Eternal Progression" as a description of a single person then I see how you can box yourself into that argument that perfection is damnation. LDS cannot see a 'single person' Eternal Life, or exaltation, that doesn't exist. Exaltation only occurs as a covenant people and being a part of the covenant people, the family of Abraham. This is why those that express in this life, the love of self or the pride of doing it on their own will end up in lesser kingdoms, still with glory but limited in terms of how much is shared. The obstetrician doesn't feel as much joy in the delivery as the husband, but still experiences some. The obstetrician experiences joy from a moment of the child's life but it typically doesn't extend for the fullness of that child's life. Likewise, those in the lower kingdoms of Glory will have their works but not experience the fullness of those works.

If the final judgment isn't an assignment to a Kingdom, what does it provide? I don't understand what "final" judgement does if it doesn't assign a person to a kingdom forever. If you are suggesting that "final" judgment only occurs when a person makes it to exaltation (or whatever point you are talking about- known or unknown) then there is no judgment, it is just an achievement, there is no judging about it.

Then your view of the story is that when Adam and Eve were listening to God it was a lie (that they were immortal) and when they listened to Satan they learned the truth?