questioning_seeker

It was REBELLION, and those who rebelled were cast out! It was never, 'Okay, look, you need to select this or that'." I think rebellion is not the right word. I see Lucifer's proposal as the legitimate expression of a valid alternative opinion. The motives behind the proposal are not ideal, but I don't think it is rebellion for Lucifer or anyone else to have had a different view, and to have tried to gain support for that view. The term rebellion suggests a type of opposition to systems of control and possibly dictatorship that I suspect did not exist in the pre-existence. I think contest of opinions is a more appropriate description than rebellion.

Many responses here have influenced my thinking and furthered my understanding, so thank you all for that.

Some interesting and thought provoking responses, thank you all. I'm attracted to Mr Shorty's line of thinking. I disagree a little with the king of the Lamanites, as I think there was something prior to the ability to choose, and that was the inability to choose, or a very limited ability to choose. Much as a new born baby has a very limited ability to choose, and this ability has to be nurtured and be allowed to grow and develop, I suspect there was a time when we as newly created spirits had very little or no ability to choose, and that this ability had to grow and be nurtured. I think at a certain point, our ability to choose grew to a point where we were able to make an informed decision between Satan and Christ's plan, but that was only one point on the road to the full development of agency. As suggested by Estradling, once we got to that point, we were ready for a harder version of the same test here on earth. This conclusion strikes me as being a little more complete, or more comprehensive, than the usual teaching that one of the reasons why we came to earth was to learn how to make wise choices and to learn how to use our agency. I think it would be more complete to say that one of the reasons why we came to earth was to continue learning how to use our agency, and to further improve our use of agency. Re James12's quote from the Encyclopaedia, I think some conclusions can be drawn from the fact that it uses of the phrase "capacity for happiness" rather than simply "happiness."

Thanks Pam, but your reply simply reinforces my question - you say we chose free agency, thereby implying that we already had the ability to choose and make wise choices - so why did we need to come here if we already possessed those important abilities? I've always been taught that one of the purposes of mortality was to learn how to make wise choices but it seems as if we knew how to do that before we got here.

Did we choose to have free agency? If we chose to have it, then we clearly already had the ability to choose so of what use was the gift of free agency if we already had that ability? If we did not choose to have it, then it was thrust upon us. Having the ability to choose thrust upon us would be completely opposed to the purpose and intent of the gift.

Just wondering if this is the same Greg who at one point almost 25 years ago established an employment agency in a house on a corner opposite Croydon pool?

Hi happier, I'm curious about what has led you to question your faith, and what questions you are asking.

I'm guessing that if you're looking for answers, at some point you'll ask a question?

so which version of Christianity are you currently involved in? I'm not sure how to recognised, receive, send or respond to other types of messages through here but if something pops up on the screen I'll presume that it's you.

Gooday lady, I'm from Australia, and I'm just wondering if having an Australian for a princess has made any difference to how the Danish royal family functions, or what impact her "Australianess" has had?

hello Tim We could become friends, but I generally find tigers are best appreciated at a distance - they can be a little scary at times, especially the white ones. :)

Gooday Matthew From the little I've looked at, the so called god gene seems linked to feelings of spirituality. I think Joseph Smith's accomplishments are more an indication of the strength of his faith rather than his level of spirituality. Of course he was tremendously faithful and spiritual, and yes, possibly he would have had an enlarged god gene but I suspect that faith may come from a different gene. An interesting question this raises is whether, now that this gene has been discovered, and if it is indeed true, does God still have exclusive access to the operation of that gene, or is it now accessible, and subject to manipulation by, man-made means? Or, put another way, can man-made technology induce the feelings of the spirit?

Gooday Ram, thanks for your reply. The first part of your reply is just a reconciliation of the differences between the two scriptures. The second part is more interesting because it is one of many possible conclusions that can be drawn from this difference, ie, that perhaps not all of Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount are contained within the scriptures. I'm not saying whether the written account of the Sermon on the Mount is complete or incomplete, I'm just suggesting that if one was trying to answer that question, then the apparent difference between these two verses could help to support a conclusion. On another matter, Pam has claimed that she is a tough cookie. I think she is more a gingerbread (wo)man than a cookie and she possibly has identity issues :) . No doubt the toughness is further evidence of having been singed and burnt at some stage. All the unburnt gingerbread people I've met are soft and kind of crumbly. Pam, loved the gingerbread huka.

I think I'd rather have a guarenteed ticket to the celestial kingdom any time, and arrive there ignorant and underdeveloped, (Lucifer's plan) with an eternity to then do all the necessary learning rather than a very very small chance of reaching the celestial kingdom, with all the necessary learning and development having been completed before arriving. (Christ's plan). As for the idea that Lucifer would have a somewhat greater role if his plan had been followed, I don't think we can draw that conclusion. God can write up whatever rules He wants, and if He didn't want Lucifer to occupy the role that Christ now does, even if it was Lucifer's plan that we followed, God could easily arrange for that to be so.

Thanks for your reply Rameumpton, you have reconciled the two apparent differences along pretty much the same lines I would have. The reconciliation of difference in this case is not too hard to do. I was pondering more along the lines of whta conclusions can be drawn from the apparent difference between these two scriptures. For example, of the many ways in which these two principles could have been taught, Christ chose to teach it in this way. Why? Because that was how the Jews best learned things? Because that is what best suited Christ's teaching styles? Because somewhere in the last 2,000 years, mistranslations have occured, distorting the message that we now have? Because what He was saying was clear and obvious to the Jews at the time and needed no further explanation? Because Matthew, and later Nephi didn't quite get it all down right the first time? I think that If I was a teacher, I would have gone to greater lengths to more clearly distinguish between these two apparently different positions. That Christ did not do so raises some questions, the answers to which may help us better understand Him, His teachings or the culture and times He lived in. ps and looking at the expression on the face of Pam's avatar - rather alarmed I'd say - you may be right about the state of her bottom.

I suspect that Satan's plan, if indeed he had his own plan, could not hvae been too fundamentally different from God's otherwise it would not have attracted the level of support that it did. I don't think that, having been raised for until millenia in the presence of our Father in Heaven, that as His spirit children, we would be willing to fight for something significantly different from what our Father was offering. My understanding is that the ultimate objective of God's plan, and Lucifers, was exhaltation. The differences were in how that exhaltation would be achieved, who would get the credit, and how many would reach exhaltation. I think that the "war" in heaven was more a difference of opinion between two sides, somewhat like a debate, rather than the kind of wars we have down here on earth. Or, more likely, it was like the kind of argument that goes on between a late adolescent and their parents when both sides finally realise that they have such findamentally different values that they can no longer live together. Looking back, I can't understand why I chose God's plan. If Heaven is as good as its promised to be, it seems to me that I would be willing to give up everything - happiness, the ability to make my own choices, opportunities for learning and growth - for the short space of this life time in order to qualify for an eternity in the celestial kingdom. God's plan is learn first, and if you learn the lessons well enough, you get to go to the celestial kingdom, but many of you won't make it. Lucifer's plan is get to the celestial kingdom, you will all make it, and then we could learn whatever lessons we needed to about choice and growth and happiness. Eternity is long enough to learn all those things that we are supposed to learn here. I think there might also be an element of selfishness in choosing God's plan over Lucifers. Lucifer's plan guarenteed a lesser reward, more widely available, whereas God's plan promised a greater reward, more likely to be achieved by the few rather than the many. When we made our choice, I suspect we were influenced more by what is best for me rather than what is best for the many.

Hi Matthew No, I don't think it invalidates spiritual witnesses, it might simply be an explanation of how spiritual witnesses are received. Everything God does is accomplished through physical laws and physical means, we just haven't discovered them all yet. It seems like the discovery of the god gene might open the window just a little into one aspect of how God creates spiritual feelings in His children. It would be a fascinating line of inquiry to consider what physical acts take place between God and the god gene to turn that gene on and off, or, put anothre way, to consider what it is that God does and how He does it, to make that gene stop and start secreting the chemicals that result in a feeling of spirituality.

Hi all I joined this forum last night and have already made two posts. This is my first foray into the world of forums and blogs of any type, so I'm not sure of the rules and protocols. I'm looking for a forum in which to discuss doctrinal issues and questions because I have a lot of ideas in my head that I'd like to sound out with others. Here's a question that occured to me yesterday in Sunday School while we were looking at Matthew 6 and 7: What conclusions can be drawn from the apparent difference between Matthew 5: 16 and Matthew 6: 1, 3? Remember, I'm looking for conclusions, not reconciliation. Clearly these two apparently opposing verses can be reconciled without much difficulty, but what conclusions can be drawn, perhaps about the inadequacies of language, or about Christ's teaching style, or about the way the Jews of that time learned things or any range of other things?. ps I think that any person whose avatar is a ginger bread man risks having their head bitten off, even if they are a moderator, particularly if they have icing for eyes and lips :)

Hi alternate, I sympathise with your situation. I suggest you raise the issue with a former bishop or stake president in a confidential and informal manner and ask how he would have advised someone in your situation while he was still a bishop. I suspect he will tell you that confession is a necessary part of repentance, but don't take it from me - go and talk to someone safe, who knows. I suspect the confession would have to be detailed and complete. I also suggest that you begin preparing your wife for what is to come, although not being a party to the relationship, I cannot offer any advice on how best to do. However, it would probably help if she could see how unhappy your actions have made you. I hope you have stopped going to the temple. Your greatest desire, your strongest motivation, even more important than preserving your marriage, has to be making things right between you and the Lord. Eternal salvation is, ultimately, an individual matter, and if you keep your family intact by not repenting, your family may be saved in this life, but you personally will not be saved in the next life. Sorry, but those are the hard facts that nobody can change.

I recommend you read Time Magazine of October 25, 2004, in which the lead article was titled The God Gene. Religion: Is God in Our Genes? - TIME The article describes a number of bona fide scientific experiments aimed at answering the question you have raised. They identify a specific gene which they believe is responsible for generating the chemicals in the brain that produce the feeling that we label as spirituality. A google search on the phrase "god gene" wil turn up many more leads that you might find interesting. I also recommend a google search using the combined terms spirituality brain scan and also neurotheology. There has been an abundance of reported reliable research in recent years exploring the notion that recordable and measurable physiological changes take place in the brain while a person is engaged in, or undergoing, a religious activity. There was a well known study done, I think in 2004, in which brain scans were performed on Carmelite nuns while they reflected on the memory of an intense spiritual experience. You can read about the report here Nuns prove God is not figment of the mind - Telegraph There is also a wikipedia article for the god gene. Following are a few sentences from that article: The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. The articles discusses both the idea of a god gene and the opposing views and contains several references. Hope this helps, I'll be very interested to read your response.