Seminarysnoozer

A few years ago Elder Neal A. Maxwell gave a talk entitled "Content with the Things Allotted unto Us" ..
 
One thing that I often remember from that talk is this:
 
"Alma’s contentment rested on the reality that God finally allots to us according to our wills (see Alma 29:4). What could be more fair?"
 
To me that says we wind up getting what we most desire and pursue.  It also says to me, be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.  If all we seek after and learn to love resides only in this world (i.e. telestial law) then how can we expect heaven to be anything more than a telestial heaven.  Which, granted, is still a heaven.. a degree of glory beyond what this mortality offers.  Probably more of a heaven than most people could imagine.. so a great reward, if you will.  That being said... Our Father is trying to help us learn to want what He wants... which is so much more... Celestial heaven can be learned.. not earned... Isn't that what we're trying to do? Learn to be celestial? What we're actively engaged in becoming and longing for is where we'll feel we belong in the end... That will be heaven for us, whether telestial, terrestrial or celestial. As for those who don't want ANYTHING our Father has to offer, well, he won't force them to take anything. They will live somewhere without glory... probably a lonely dark corner somewhere... probably alone, I would imagine.

The quote, if one reads it carefully, does not really say when those things will be given to the saints.  It is just saying if you desire any of those things and do so while being guided by the Holy Ghost then the Lord is willing to give those things according to the promises made through his Apostles and Prophets - in other words, the promises made by covenants, all things will be given to the faithful.  Receiving everything God has eventually, in other words, requires a desire for it but that doesn't necessarily mean desiring it for use in this life except under the circumstances by which the Holy Ghost guides it for this life.  Otherwise, he is talking about receiving all God has in the next life.  

The quote, if one reads it carefully, does not really say when those things will be given to the saints.  It is just saying if you desire any of those things and do so while being guided by the Holy Ghost then the Lord is willing to give those things according to the promises made through his Apostles and Prophets - in other words, the promises made by covenants, all things will be given to the faithful.  Receiving everything God has eventually, in other words, requires a desire for it but that doesn't necessarily mean desiring it for use in this life except under the circumstances by which the Holy Ghost guides it for this life.  Otherwise, he is talking about receiving all God has in the next life.  

What SemSnoozer is saying is correct. But it is, I believe, disregarding the importance of individuality -- something that I believe matters...though why or how, I don't know.
 
But (imo) God is God without others, in spite of the fact that, accurately, God could not become God without others.
 
Of course, that's irrelevant, because God will never actually be God without others (specifically a spouse), and so putting it in terms like SemSnooz does is logical.
 
But, yeah...it sounds weird. I guess I'd be more inclined to get on board if any prophet or apostle had ever explicitly taught the same interpretation in the same way. It's a fine interpretation of things. But it is, ultimately, only an interpretation.

Are you saying gender is a deficiency unless someone is married to someone of the opposite gender?  If so - there are element of that concept I find incredibly brilliant - especially on a combination of a spiritual and physical level (since we cannot be married as spirits - thus the need for temple work).  This bring so much that I have never before considered and intend to study in great detail.
 
 
PS - I do think there are things that can be "hidden" from G-d.  Not so much that he cannot go somewhere to observe something as that he will not.

Question:  Over the years several here have suggested to me that a fair number of faithful LDS will end up in the Terrestial Kingdom.  A few have even speculated that there might be the occasional non-LDS Christian who makes the Celestial Kingdom.  And certainly, those who achieve exaltation will be less than those who make the top kingdom.
 
If so, might it not be that we will find ourselves in the Kingdom that suites us.  Are they not all Heavenly Realms?  Of course the highest is infinitely greater than the middle, and the middle infinitely greater than the lower.  Nevertheless, perhaps the higher kingdoms would be too high for those who do not go there? 
 
Sadly, for those in the outer darkness, all heavenly kingdoms are too much, for they have chosen the way of exile.

The expansion of the universe is not just making matter to become further apart  - We are talking about the expansion of the universe itself.  This includes increasing the space time that defines the limits that our universe exist within.   The theory is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere - to explain this think of a curved 2 dimensional plane that eventually bends enough to become a sphere - like a balloon.  The surface of the balloon being 2 dimensional space time.  Then think of the balloon being inflated (becoming larger).
 
Now think of 3 dimensional space that bends (as demonstrated by special relativity) to form a 4 dimensional sphere.  That 4 dimensional sphere is the balloon that is our universe.  The force that is inflating that balloon is by definition; dark energy.  And from what we know the balloon is not stretching to become bigger but the force that is inflating the balloon is itself accelerating, becoming more powerful over time. Meaning that the universe is very unlikely to stretch out increasing the potential energy - like a stretching spring that will over time slow and be drawn back.  Dark energy is not just about mater filling space - but increasing the very space time in which mater exist within.   ---- Are you impressed yet?

Your seminary classes must have been a whole lot more interesting than mine!

There are many topics that don't interest me on this forum that I simply read but don't make any comments.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There are times I re-read the scriptures and find something that I have read many times over that now has a different significance to me at this time in my life and maybe I only appreciate that level of understanding after I have enough of a foundation to build on. There are topics, obviously, that I discuss over and over again that others, I am sure, find boring.
 
Like my name states, I slept through seminary class, so now I discuss all the things I wish I would have before.  Thanks for the discussion. I mean that.

My mission president told us missionaries (many years ago) that there are three kinds of missionaries.  First there are the missionaries that get into their calling and make things happen.  Second there are the missionaries that sit on the side lines and watch things happen.  Finely there are those missionaries that wander around wondering what is happening????
 
Seminary is a wonderful and dynamic individual that is about getting into life and making things happen.  I'm just here to keep her honest and keep her sharp mind considering those things that may not be so obvious. 
 
I sincerely hope reading our "back and forth" is enlightening and helpful. Especially stimulating to investigate deeper in to what you believe and why.

Agreed, and on top of that the presumed idea that the two types of matter are equivalent is also false.

God's judgement seems to be final, not that we can't progress to another kingdom, but more that we won't because our spiritual nature will not change.

probably the same thing that prevents depressed, addicted, or angry people from pursuing such, would be my guess.

I gotta say though, the word exalted in the church has a distinct meaning, and using it otherwise can cause confusion. So, in my opinion, it's problematic to refer to exalted states other than exaltation in the Celestial kingdom. Because exaltation has such a distinct meaning, it makes sense to me to choose a different word if referring to some other place where we are, relatively, exalted.

It is not a matter of "logic". Logic is the process of using truths we already know as building blocks to prove the existence of other truths, things that must necessarily arise from what we know now. For example, the First Presidency taught of the existence of a heavenly Mother by using a sort of logical argument stating that the existence of an exalted Man or "Father" necessarily implied the existence of an exalted Woman or "Mother". There are many different forms of logic, but I know of none that would allow us to take our current imprecise and partial understandings of this topic and use them to prove that "kingdom progression" must necessarily exist.
 
You could argue (quite convincingly) that the scriptural and prophetic teachings seem to imply that "kingdom progression" does not happen -- and I would probably agree with you -- but that still does not constitute proof in any rigidly logical sense. We really can't use logic to establish the facts one way or the other.
 
But that doesn't mean both are equally likely or equally reasonable. We do not have a public revelation of the truths of these matters; I rather suspect we don't know enough to understand those answers, even if they were given to us. We are thus left to grope in the dimness, offering opinions and telling stories as to why our suspicions ought to be valued over someone else's. Here's mine:
 
In evolutionary biology -- a topic that interests me greatly, but that I have no real expertise in past the dedicated spectator level, so take the literality of my examples with a grain of salt -- living things are classified according to a taxonomy that starts (depending on which taxonomy you like best) with the organism's "kingdom". There are several kingdoms, varying depending again on which taxonomy you want to follow, and they typically have names like Animals, Plants, Amoebas, Slime molds, Fungi, and so forth.
 
Within each kingdom you find an astonishing variety of living things. "Animals" include things ranging from an all-but-invisibly-tiny water bear to the 100+-foot-long, nearly half-million-pound blue whale, from a millipede to a moose, from a lobster on the bottom of the sea to a mountain goat at 15,000 feet, from a fish sailing through the water to a hawk sailing through the air. All of these are part of the Animal kingdom.
 
If you look at, say, the Plant kingdom, you will see an equally astounding variety of living things, from duckweed that looks like cornmeal floating on the water to giant redwood trees nearly 400 feet tall (think of it!), from pansies to cacti, from Kentucky bluegrass to carnivorous (!!) Venus flytraps.
 
Some very long time ago indeed, possibly billions of years ago, these separate kingdoms of organisms were thought to have had common ancestors. But at some point, some organism took the path of becoming Animals and some took the path of becoming Plants. Today, hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years later, both types of beings (or rather, their descendants) exist and flourish. But a Plant and its descendants will never become Animals. Never. They are of the Plant kingdom. That branch divided a very, very, very long time ago. That choice was made anciently. It can and will never be undone. Plants may, and surely will, continue evolving and developing in all sorts of astounding directions, but they will never become Animals. And Animals will never become Plants. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that any living thing would "progress" from one kingdom to another. Such an idea doesn't even make sense. A Plant and an Animal are both "living things", but they are of completely different types.
 
I believe the "kingdoms" spoken of in the Doctrine and Covenants are of a somewhat similar nature. All such kingdoms of glory are comprised of human souls, just as all taxonomic kingdoms are comprised of living things. All such kingdoms of glory will offer progression to their inhabitants, just as Plant and Animal species, and indeed all living things, progress through the generations with varying rates and types of change. But the divisions have taken place. Plants are not Animals, and never will be. In the same sense, we are choosing this day how we want to exist. We make our choices now, in this life, while we draw breath, and perhaps also in the next while we await the Resurrection. But the time will come when our choice will have been made. We will have set ourselves on our eternal course, and our loving and generous Father will do all that can be done to help us further ourselves along that path.
 
But make no mistake, they are separate paths, and the further along them we go, the further they separate. And those paths never cross each other.
 
An elm tree spends no time wishing it were a buffalo. For the most part, and with only a few bizarre exceptions, a person spends no time wishing he were a protozoan. In my opinion, it will be so in the next life; I don't see that those in a "lower" kingdom will spend any time thinking about how great it would be if they were in a "higher" kingdom.
 
But our Lord has told us that we will gain a maximum of joy and eternal happiness, literally beyond our ability to understand, if we seek honestly and intently for exaltation. I believe him, and so I seek.

We are told that we enter this live with a veil of forgetfulness over our minds.  Many religions do not believe we have any memories but for LDS, the concept is we came to this life having forgotten all.  It is necessary that we forget for this experience to be complete.  Why? – that is part of what is forgotten.  However we are told we exercised agency to come to earth and we will exercise agency to determine our next life.  One reason I have speculated that we have forgotten all is for the same reason for the child game of pin the tail on the donkey.  So we have an excuse for pinning the tail where it does not belong.  Likewise we have excuse for our sins to make repentance possible.  We cannot repent of something we do deliberately with no regret.
 
The assumption that we do not know things here in our mortal life because we never knew them; is an assumption based in the false teaching of the Great Apostasy that this life is the beginning of your choices.  Thus it is we chose to make mistakes while blindfolded – however, it also appears to me that by our agency we chose previously the mistakes we would make – all is according to our own plan.  If it is not according to our plan how can we claim agency?  If we only act out G-d’s plan then the agency is his not ours.
 
There is one final way to consider this – this is through the lens of covenant.   We came to earth because me made a covenant with G-d.  What is that covenant we made with G-d?  Perhaps before we answer that question we should ask the question – What is a covenant?  And how does agency apply to covenant?

Why would anyone choose to go through deterministic life circumstances that would get them relegated to a lesser kingdom?
That simply seem unjust to me. Unless the end result of any path of choices would be to the celestial glory. Which seems very un-doctrinal, and much more like Satans plan. While Determinism and Fatalism to me sound exactly like Satans plan.

The only other possibility that I can think of would be that free agency and Gods ability to foresee all things are not mutually exclusive. (Basically what seminarysnoozer said) 

If things were thus I would directly ask God before being sent to earth, will I make it? Will my other brothers and sisters have the chance to make it? and if not it sounds like a terrible deal. It would mean that you have already been judged, the scales weighed in balance and sorry, you get to suffer. (or hopefully not)

Sorry, I have strong emotions on this type of topic               
If I stick around I'll have to watch myself.

It is possible to know what will happen even if it is by chance, those things are not mutually exclusive.  If I roll the dice and I know I am going to roll snake eyes on the fifth roll, it could still be "chance" and yet it was forseen that the fifth roll was snake eyes.   We can know what is going to happen to us is a set of random occurances and accept it.  Can that not be true?

And the other thing left out is the personality we came to this world with, our spirit self.

I recall a Sunday School lesson where the instructor describe three types of trials that we experience in this life. Some are these "tailor made" trials that are specific to us as individuals like we are talking about. The interesting category as it applies to this discussion is the "that is just part of living in a fallen, mortal world." The idea is that sometimes we get sick or injured or economies fail or (insert form of adversity here), not because God has a deep, personally significant lesson that we need to learn from this experience, but because these are the kinds of things that happen in mortality and we need to see how we respond to mortality.
 
Using SS's example of Myotonic Dystrophy (or other genetic illness), perhaps there are some cases where God is specifically manipulating or monitoring genes/conditions to match an individual with a specific trial. Maybe there are other cases where He simply allows the randomness to happen to see what we will make of the situation.

I'm not sure how much it will contribute, but I am reminded of a couple of things:
 
Einstein's somewhat well known statement, specifically as it regards quantum mechanics, that he had trouble believing that
God would "play dice" with the universe. If memory serves, he later regretted such statements as evidence for the randomness of quantum mechanics grew. This question seems quite similar. We can clearly see that genetics plays a role in our mortal experience, and we like to believe that God has "tailor made" our mortal experience on a very personal level. The deterministic view expressed by the latter seems at odds with the randomness of genetic inheritance.
 
It is always possible that what appears random to us may appear more controlled when viewed from God's perspective. How that works, I clearly do not know.
 
Is it possible that our mortal experience is less "determined" -- less "tailor made" than we tend to believe?

This seems entirely unanswerable. But I look forward to the debate you and Traveler have on it. :)

What greater righteousness is there than creating living beings, children, capable of eternal righteousness in the image of G-d inside of the covenant of marriage which is ordained by G-d himself?  Even with G-d this creation of human life is considered his greatest triumph in righteousness.

((Continued from previous post))
On a personal level, this may make us frustrated. However, at a policy level, it's completely inconsequential. APA and ACA codes of ethics already deem it unethical for behavioral health professionals to try to change sexual orientation either way. The consequences of being caught doing so range from sanctions up the ying-yang, to loss of license to practice, to malpractice lawsuits.I'm with you that there are most definitely those who have a choice. As you alluded to with your friend above. However, where I get off the boat is when you allude to how rare it is for people to not have a choice. I don't get off the boat because I disagree, I get off the boat because the literature coming out of psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology admit to inconclusive results. In other words, no one knows to what degree it is a choice, and to what degree humans are born with the hardwiring to be that way. The only consensus is that some may be choosing to be gay while others may be hardwired that way. But what percentage either way is indeterminable at this time. So, it's illogical to make a claim one way or another.Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work.I completely agree with you to a large extent. We should not be teaching that we can't control our sexual feelings. We should also not be teaching that sexual arousal doesn't evolve over time. However, sexual orientation is indeed very much innate and typically does not change. I agree with you that we should not blanket statement all of humanity with the notion that orientation doesn't change. But, there is consensus in the medical literature that orientation, for the most part, does not change.Again, we must differentiate between sexual desire/feelings/behaviors/attractions/orientations. While they are all inter-related, they are not intrinsically the same within human nature.
The affective neurosciences are demonstrating through deep brain scan imaging that emotions are our first responses to the environment. They are proto-responses (proto- meaning first, primitive, raw) that serve a specific purpose: to inform us. These emotions from the limbic system are what psychology refers to as primary emotions because they come first in response to that environment. They are 100% uncontrollable. Anyone who argues this is beyond uneducated on the matter and/or has allowed wishful thinking and confirmation bias to cloud their understanding.Now, someone may say, "I used to get mad at my child talking back at me, but now I don't. So that means I am controlling my anger." This is actually fundamental attribution error. Developing a habit to respond a certain way in the exact same situation means neural pathways (habits) have been created for that particular situation. That alone does not mean that you have learned to control your anger by and large. A person would need to demonstrate this through numerous expected/unexpected situations to prove that they are controlling their anger--which no research study to date has successfully demonstrated to be possible. This is why a father has learned not to get angry at his child but still erupts into anger when his subordinate at work becomes argumentative and insubordinate. A person may certainly develop appropriate responses to their primary emotions, and even manage the salience with which they experience them. However, they cannot control them.
Secondary and tertiary emotions are within our capacity to manage, and even control; primary emotions, however, are not.

Doctrinally, this is correct with certain contexts: spiritual vs. carnal. However, human nature is rather more complex. Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Taylor remind us that we are actually polyphonic beings. Meaning, we are multi-voiced beings inescapably engaged in series of ongoing conversations with ourselves, others, the world, and a "super-addressee" (Bakhtin's term for God). We are not governed by an overarching ego, but rather by multiple voices from ourselves and others.No.I have no disagreement here. I am actually with you on this one, TFP. But, where I get off the boat is the question, "To what extent?" Psychologically speaking, we are always subject to possibility and constraint. Meaning, how possible it is for us to change will always be constrained by both internal and external factors. Ex: it is certainly possible for a person with a chemical imbalance to change, but that possibility will always be constrained by the chemical imbalance itself, (what we call in therapy) supportive factors, effectiveness of medication, effectiveness of priesthood blessings, the individual's faith, and quite frankly, God's willingness (cf. Paul's thorn in his side).In other words, I am meeting you way beyond half way here because I agree with you for a very long way down the river. But, I do get off the boat before you because the questions becomes one of possibility vs. constraint: how much change can realistically occur?
A good book on this is The Psychology of Human Possibility and Constraint by Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman.
With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.But, that is in no way evidence that that is what you are doing. And, this isn't intended to be an attack. I could way off base here. I completely recognize that I don't know either way.
The clinical literature from the APA and ACA has not determined this conclusively. The truth is, no one on this planet knows if this statement is accurate or not. Many psychologist don't even consider IED a disorder. That's why it is categorized in the DSM in a separate category. And that category is called by many practicing therapists the "throw away category" because they don't really know what to make of it, it's so-called symptoms, and how it manifests. We actually know very little about both. Again, I am not saying your statement is wrong, I am saying that the most up-to-date clinical literature hasn't been able to determine the accuracy of sich a statement.That's why the LGBTQ community, according to the HRC training I attended back in July, put on by the LGBTQ community, distinguish between behaviors and identity. Engaging in same-sex behaviors is very different than same-sex orientation being a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of a person's self-concept. We must distinguish in these dialogues between those choosing to be gay, and those who are gay. Granted their behaviors make up their orientation and identity. You'll get no argument from me there. The difference I am pointing out is an issue of self-concept.I am not really taking a position with this statement, merely pointing out some psych-education.
100% agreed.