SpiritDragon

I bet it's #3... You quite possibly did a stint as a prison chaplin in Japan;)

I get insatiable urges to lift heavy objects that don't need to be moved and then put them back down repeatedly. Supposedly there are some health benefits. I love role playing games and time with family. I am a big fan of trivia games and chess.

If we get to play the "used to" card, I had a very natural inclination towards nudity until around age 3. I have never really liked how restrictive clothing feels. I still like like freedom and my tendency is to wear sweats and t-shirts, but i do try to choose "stylish" sweats and t-shirts so I don't look like a bum. I think my need to move freely lead me into my career path (fitness professional) where the dress code is to wear athletic clothing to work... I'd get sent home if I showed up to work in jeans or slacks:)

It is true that in the garden of Eden Adam and Eve could not procreate... The idea here being that Satan's plan allowed for procreation, but no choice and therefore no agency, no understanding of opposition. It would be kind of like in Satan's plan the fall would have occurred... but not by choice, but out of necessity. This line of thinking actually could take one full circle into the idea that they did not suffer the positive or negative consequences of the Fall and therefore goes along with the other theory that taking away consequences takes away agency. Either way the plan would not lead to happiness. Whether we were unhappy because we were forced into everything against our will, or because we could not discern between happy and sad.

Along the lines of agency requiring punishment... A thought I had is that in the garden of eden we know that Adam and Eve had agency to choose to partake of the fruit of the tree. Obviously this choice came with punishment (and blessings) but what about any other choices they made in the garden? There was no opposition to all things... no good, no evil, no right, no wrong. My thought is that they either had agency or they didn't (and they did) yet only in the decision to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a punishment attached, so I am somewhat inclined to think that agency is more a matter of making the choices, as opposed to choosing the consequences. On a similar note one theory I picked up somewhere along the way is that the real problem with Satan's plan is everyone would have remained in a "garden" state not knowing good and evil, because without agency to choose evil... sorrow could never enter the world, and without sorrow we couldn't understand joy. This is contrary to the plan of happiness because happiness would not be the end result for any of God's children.

Before you brought up this post I was naive enough to believe that there would be a consensus among members of the church about what is inappropriate to watch, I can now clearly see this is not the case. I personally find nothing on TV worthwhile these days. It is all vile and has crude irreverent overtones in the humour (or lack thereof). There was a period in my childhood when the Simpsons was banned at my house, but it didn't hold. My parents were right to ban it though... we didn't benefit from watching it in any way. I mean we had our laughs, but it also has a lot of crude humour. In general I find it quite simple to lay out rules for what I should not watch. If there is any nudity it isn't appropriate. If the language is out of hand it isn't appropriate (I generally operate with a 10 swear rule, after 10 I usually leave), I also find no place for crude humour, sexually suggestive tones, excessive violence. A disclaimer so as not to be hypocritical: I have watched movies and shows that by my own rules are not acceptable. On rare occasions I feel it may have even been worth it. Truly, though I mostly think the entertainment business is one of Satan's best tools to keep us distracted from things that actually matter.

Far from an apostolic smack-down... my meager understanding of things. My understanding is that before a third part of the spirits could be lead away by Satan/Lucifer they had to have an understanding of the plan and those of us that chose to keep our first estate did so by putting our faith in the saviour, and those who left with Lucifer lacked sufficient faith in Jehovah as the saviour to go ahead with the plan as described.

Some good thoughts here team. I can definitely see how Satan would be looking to exploit marriage by introducing opposition into the union. However, I am confused as to why Satan would want Eve to get Adam to partake as well... when if only she partook and was cast out it would have created the most potent rift he could have hoped for. Perhaps after being unsuccessful at getting Adam to partake, Lucifer was arrogant enough to believe that Eve would also be unsuccessful persuading Adam. That being said, I personally believe that Satan wanted both to be cast out and begin having posterity. He wanted to make those who kept their first estate miserable, a condition that wasn't possible in the garden state. I also wonder if Lucifer simply planned to get Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of life next and frustrate the plan. I don't doubt that Lucifer knew the plan quite well, so my question is: What about the mind of God was it that Satan didn't know that is being referenced?

Mine is symbolic of being a defender of the faith, and a reminder to myself that my protection (shield) comes from choosing the right.

Hi Suzie, Dr. Fuhrman's recipes are quite healthy at this link:Online Library | Healthy and Delicious Recipes | DrFuhrman.com Unfortunately the vast majority require a membership to his site, but there are currently some that you can view and may find useful.

I don't know what your ward boundaries are like, but my first thought is along the same lines as Dravin's. Perhaps enough people are close enough to the meeting house to walk or are not under the same travel advisory/ban. I'm sorry you feel guilty. Yes we do obey the laws of the land. Your Bishop quite possibly also didn't know it was an offense to travel with the risk of being fined... especially if this only applied to a part of the ward boundary that he might not live in.

You won't find any argument with you here:) Let's just change "trouble" to "mystery". The mystery of infinite regression always leaving one to wonder where the parent that came before came from... it is so much nicer in the origins of man to have Adam as a starting point... so we don't get weird ideas like coming from monkeys. I have always accepted that eternity goes both ways, or rather is one eternal round. I do fail to see how God being in a different eternal state (intelligence) before being God as we know Him requires the eternities not to go backwards as well as forwards... especially when we look at it through the lens that we accept the premortal, mortal, and resurrected Christ as God, why could we not accept a former premortal intelligence as God, thus He always was and is God, just not in the state we know Him. But I agree that we won't have the answers in this life unless one of our modern prophets has a revelation concerning it, which isn't likely as it is deemed non-essential to salvation, otherwise we'd already have the answer. I'm glad you found it interesting, and hopefully we all learned some things in the process.

Yes welcome Steve784. You may find some of the answer you seek at this link: Jesus Christ/Praying to - FairMormon

Plenty of rest and fluids is always a staple around here. We have recently found that copious amounts of elderberry extract seems to be quite helpful. This fall I started to get the sniffles and I loaded up on elderberry extract and the disaster was averted. At the onset of a sore throat oil of oregano tends to be useful dropped under the tongue a few times through out the day. Keeping vitamin D levels up has been shown to reduce frequency and duration of colds, unlike vitamin C which is popular but has failed to conclusively help. Zinc is also useful for maintaining proper immunity. It can be useful even after onset... I once had a nasty cold that was leaving me quite congested, after taking a chewable zinc tablet some of the congestion eased. my wife likes eucalyptus and peppermint oils dabbed on the corners of her pillow to help relieve congestion for easier breathing to sleep. A hot bath may also help. They can supposedly give your body a break from running a fever by keeping your temperature up for you allowing your body to re-allocate energy to the healing process instead of running a fever. At the very least they are usually soothing. Hot lemon water sweetened with honey (which may actually be the most important part) also tends to have a soothing effect, even if it does nothing to promote healing. Once the cold (or flu) sets in fully a cozy blanket and pillow with a go to movie seem to be about what's left.

Doctrine and Covenants 64:10-11 states: 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. 11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds. I can see there being a disconnect, but I do believe the LDS perspective in general would be in keeping with this passage of scripture that both parties need to move on. For the victim forgiving the aggressor is a crucial step in the healing process and finally being free of the untoward event. This kind of healing requires the healing power that is Jesus' to give. I do agree with the false dichotomy. One being able to heal and move on should not prevent the other from doing so. One requires the healing power of Christ for sins they committed, while the other needs healing because they were the victim of sin. Alma7: 11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. The perspective here being that Christ suffered not only for our sins, but also suffered the pains caused by those sins and has the ability to succor his people.

I see I missed the year we studied Indiana Jones in gospel doctrine or seminary somewhere along the way. I was sure that the holy grail was resting with King Arthur awaiting his return to restore Camelot's glory. Boy was I mistaken.

I served with missionaries a decade ago that were on antidepressants, but the rules might have changed. We had one elder that was frequently getting put on stronger prescriptions and even required counselling. I'd suspect it wouldn't stop you from serving as long as it is managed, and it sounds like yours is minor and manageable. I have however also heard of young men not being able to serve full-time missions because of serious depression which would negatively affect the work and be hard on companions... not to mention the increased likelihood of not completing the mission which can have serious emotional consequences and comes with an unfortunate stigma.

welcome. I'll be glad to help too.

PC that is an awesome picture of an ancient computer predating the internet. I doubt it even had the ability to connect to a modem. It looks older than the Tandy 1000 i played on as a kid that outdates windows 3.1... yikes. I too still have a desk-top that uses XP, but it rarely gets used now that we have an HP laptop with win7.

I see no detraction here Seminarysnoozer. I agree completely that we all become one with God, and therefore although we could be any overly large number in a line of "personages" to become gods (very intentional little g) we become one with God (very intentional big G) and therefore like you say could very much be considered God-Zero, which is a fitting designation for our current Heavenly Father as long as we aren't too caught up in the idea of his individual personage being "the first," which is simply irrelevant because He is One with God and is God now (and if we accept the idea of being gods in the making, we can accept that He always was god as well... just as we accept that a man was a boy and still always a man, at least as far as being a man can also refer to being human as a race)

Let me preface everything I have to say with the point that my intent is not to be contentious, but to explore the ideas. Indeed, we just don't know everything about intelligences and God (this is why it would be classified as theory). However, I think it is fair to say that if we are currently mortal, and we were previously spirits and intelligences that now have the promise of becoming Gods in the future it is safe to say that at least some intelligences go on to become Gods or become one with God. This is all that is relevant here. Whether all intelligences have the potential to become gods or not does not stop the possibility of others. Perhaps if we thought of intelligences more of as seeds and acorns as a specific kind of seed. Not all seeds will grow into oak trees, only the acorns will. Not all the acorns will grow into strong Oak trees, only those with the right conditions to allow for this progression. Thus if some intelligences were more on par with dandelion seeds or any other seed than those with the possibility of becoming oak trees it becomes apparent to me that these intelligences are not the ones we are concerned with. We can rest assured that if we have the promise of celestial glory and godhood (being oak trees) that we are or were intelligences that do have that potential. There is no doubt that it is a stretch by the numbers to end up with one out of an infinite number. The question is, is it any more of a stretch than to believe that an infinite number of eternal beings known as intelligences exist and one other eternal being also just happens to exist who is capable of giving them bodies and helping them progress to become like him, but no other like him existed naturally. The whole point is trying to figure out where did god zero (for lack of a better term) come from. Obviously, we don't know... again why some theorize. I completely accept that God says we will have ALL that he has. It will be a full sharing of glory, and happiness. This particular theory has no problem accepting our God as the billionth in a line since god zero. I agree where anyone falls within the overall geneology of the infinite eternal family has no bearing on the godliness of said being. I too see no problem with God having parents. The point of the theory is to explain the concept of god's origins. The trouble with infinite regression always being, "where did His parents come from?" One possible explanation is that somewhere in a chain of events hard to understand is that one god came to be without parentage. How? we don't know... I mean even if this theory were to hold up we step it up to the question, "where do the intelligences come from?" Eventually we either need to accept that God simply is, or is not. No argument here. Our Heavenly Father was a man. As for every single God that came before Him, we don't know... but it does seem fitting that all gods were once mortals as we are. Again these points all hit at the crux of the matter. If God was once a man... how did a man once become god? We sure don' know. Somehow it happened. It is against the commandments for us to have incestuous relationships, however in the time of Adam and Eve there was no other way and provisions were made so that it was okay. Perhaps special rules apply during seasons of origin.

Apology accepted. All I wanted to accomplish was to give CommanderSouth something to think about in the first place. I like to think the conversation was still more or less agreeable at first. I also agree that the spirit of contention has infiltrated and the spirit has left this conversation. For my contribution to that (inadvertent as it may be) I apologize and own that. If you would at your leisure dismantle the theory piece by piece I would actually be interested. I have nothing vested in the theory really. Again if my comments came across as hostile it was only because I felt you were being rude and dismissive, which left me feeling like getting points across with more assertive language. A sad byproduct of us being unknown anonymous internet entities perhaps, and not conversing in person. Any how I think we can move past this incident without housing any deep-seated anger issues toward each-other. Thanks for being willing to deflate the situation with me. I believe it was the "Oh come on" in my world this is a dismissive statement meant to suggest that something is too ridiculous to even be worth discussing or completely and utterly stupid. Thank you. My apologies for the inflammatory words (not intended as such). It seemed to me that your initial comment put forth the argument that because others could master the laws that are this proved the entire theory false. In the subsequent post I explained how this wasn't necessarily the case to which you responded by saying "sure it does" and then followed the "sure it does" with comments unrelated to the topic of just because one being can do something doesn't mean others can, but by my perception jumping ship to talk about any old theory that is ridiculous while avoiding the actual points to the existing conversation. At this time I felt you had a tone suggestive of anyone entertaining the thought being stupid, especially by comparing it to far more obviously flawed theories that again seemed irrelevant to the conversation at hand other than as tools to emphasize the stupidity of the theory as posted. I saw this as a weak point, as it did nothing to address the concept being discussed while being used as the defense for "sure it does." While it's true that converting "I'm not of a mind to list them," to "I can't come up with right now" is somewhat inflammatory it served its point as a contrast to how the discussion could be going in a more civil tone. Taking it as a stand alone is out of context as I was stating we should try to be more careful how we discuss the topic so as not to be inflammatory that we should avoid this very tone while in its place using thoughts such as... have you considered this angle?... No... but what about this... aww, I hadn't thought of it that way. I am sincerely sorry for contributing to upset feelings. Perhaps we will both have learned to tread even more carefully in our conversations so as not to cause contention. It takes a big person to offer apologies of any degree. I applaud your efforts for a peaceful resolution as opposed to continued attacks to keep pride intact. CommanderSouth I also sincerely hope that you can find some use in the theories I've presented, remembering of course they are just that, theories . I never meant to cause discontent in your thread.

I'm sorry if I have upset you. I never wish to argue either. I truly am open to having holes in the theory exposed. It is a valid point that any teachings align with known gospel doctrine, but a theory is in nature an unknown. If God revealed the nature of the origin of God there would be no need or desire to form theories because we would have revealed truth. Indeed if we can clearly disprove a theory with known doctrines than we can safely assume the theory is flawed and discard it. Even if the theory is wrong, which I have spelled out clearly is a decent probability, if learning has taken place in the process of debunking the theory than it is not a waste of time. It is certainly a more productive endeavor to be thinking about these things and studying them than watching the latest reality TV show. I truly apologize if my comments have come across as argumentative. I certainly have felt that your comments have been rude and condescending which has likely inflated my tone in response. The first post exposing one possible problem with the theory is fine enough, but would come across less abrasively if you were to ask how the theory explains the supposed problem rather than attack it outright. The next post simply seemed to be an angry and inflammatory assault that didn't even appear to have taken in the possible resolution to the suggested problem by saying that now we are just making theories out of thin air... because supposedly explaining one possible solution to a problem within the theory makes it less valid than it was to begin with? I absolutely have no intent of harboring ill will or causing contention. But I haven't yet seen the theory disproved. I'm not overly attached to the theory, but I am attached to a more inquisitive approach to debunking it, such as what about such and such... how can we explain XYZ in place of saying it is completely and utterly stupid because it goes against doctrine that I can't come up with right now.

Indeed theories need to have grounding and follow sound doctrinal principles. The point is that it is just as much speculation that just because one being is capable of doing something that others can do it to. We have a precedence here with Christ as the example of a being capable of doing that which others could not. What I am saying is that the possibility of others being able to do the same is also unproven and therefore the original theory is not disproven by a new theory that someone else might be able to do the same thing. (This of course referring to the concept that if one intelligence mastered the laws that are that any other could also... we just don't know) I am not preaching it as doctrine by any stretch. But CommanderSouth asked for ideas and I presented some. Exposing holes in theories is great. We do need to look for falsehoods and expose them. But this is not a flying spaghetti monster theory. As I've discussed the point that one could do it does not prove another could as well, and therefore does not disprove the theory. Sure other holes likely exist in the theory, and I'm open to hear them. But to simply fire back with "sure it does" and than list other unrelated points is weak.

The acorn analogy I read was posted by rameumptom in the is priesthood god's or gods? thread. I'm not at all suggesting that ram has any oddball theories such as I have postulated... just giving credit where it is due. Also reading ram's version is a bit better than my quick redo of it.