Crypto

Something more or less like this.

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.

Sure; we already knew this.  Do we do it routinely?  Well . . . we should  . . . :)

OK, so I am persuaded that a market economy is the most effective means mankind has ever discovered for generating wealth. It's just that it produces the kind of goods and services people have money to pay for, and are willing to spend on, rather than (necessarily) the kind goods and services that are good for us, and nourish each and all of us in minds, bodies and spirits.
 
So, my not very radical proposal is merely that, before we spend on some consumer flotsam or luxury jetsam, we simply ask ourselves if we can justify that purchase as more important to us than food, or medicine, or clean water, might be to some refugee of catastrophe, climate, or war, or some victim of political, social or economic subjugation. And if we can't justify it in such terms, then we might think about how our money might be better deployed.
 
I suspect that, if we get into this kind of habit, we will find benefits for ourselves, as well as the others we voluntarily support.
 
But, I expect that you Latter Day Saints are going to say you already knew this, and do it routinely, anyway!
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

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.

I'd agree with most of that, especially your last comments, Crypto. But the thing my purchase of a luxury handbag does, is express an economic demand for luxury handbags. The thing a malnourished individual's failure to buy food does, is express no economic demand for food. Thus, in the system, the effect will be to produce more luxury handbags, and less food. I am not sure, quite aside from the scandal of the inevitable starvation of the malnourished, that the signals we send to the market to produce this or that economic good or service, is necessarily the signal we want to send. In a lop-sided market, distorted by super-wealth for some and nothing for others, we do not get a market reaction that is either rational or moral.
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

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?

I'm getting into a foul mood here.  Do these look like hard candies?  They are gumdrops I tell ya.
 

Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country from you.  I'd be fighting you off.  
 
When I used to perform and someone would say break a leg...I took it very personal.  :)

Wait a gosh darn minute. What does it say over my avatar?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=32166585&nid=1284&title=lds-church-confirms-womens-meeting-now-part-of-general-conference
 
SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church's semiannual General Women's Meeting is now an official session of the faith's semiannual general conferences.
“The First Presidency has decided that the General Women’s Meeting will be designated as the General Women’s Session of general conference," said Jessica Moody, spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think the implicit understanding of the economy on which this is founded--numberless concourses of people chasing a finite amount of dollars, with some inevitably losing and starving to death--is deeply flawed.  Money is merely a medium of exchange--not wealth per se.  Wealth consists of the goods and services created/obtained/accumulated in a given economic unit.  As long as a population in general, and a workforce in particular, is growing, one person's gain need not be another person's loss. 
 
I'll give you an example:
 
If you and I are on a deserted island, and I have a piece of gold, and you have a coconut, and we trade--neither of us is "wealthier".  The island's "gross domestic product" hasn't changed--both before and after the transaction the island's GDP consisted of one piece of gold and one coconut. We have redistributed wealth (which, if voluntary, isn't a bad thing), but we have not created any.
But let's say I suddenly realize you now have that shiny piece of gold, and I want it back. How can I (legally) get it? Well, maybe I figure out a way to make a decent spear, which I'm sure you'll want badly enough that I can trade it to you for that piece of gold you now have. I make the spear, and you buy it from me.
 
Now, something interesting has happened.  Notice that there's still only one gold piece on the island.  But the island's GDP now consists of a coconut, a spear, and the piece of gold. By producing a good or a service, I have created wealth from almost nothing.  Through our transactions, I now have the gold--and the island's total money supply remains unchanged--but are you less wealthy?  No!  You have the spear, whose value you yourself decided was equal to that of the gold you gave up (whose value, in turn, you yourself decided was equal to the coconut you started out with)! 
 
The takeaway from this should be that the amount of actual cash in a system doesn't necessarily reflect the true wealth in the system, and it certainly doesn't prevent more wealth from being created either collectively or individually.  The fact that I have a dollar doesn't keep you from getting a dollar, any more than the fact that I had a hamburger at McDonald's for lunch today means that you can't get a hamburger from McDonald's for lunch tomorrow.
And the principles are the same even on a macroeconomic scale. Mere redistribution does not create wealth, on either an individual or a nationwide basis.  What we need--and what the free enterprise system (in conjunction with reasonable regulations to prevent fraud and a healthy safety net for the disabled) has provided for, better than any other system that has existed to date--is wealth creation. 
 
Yes, I'm aware that this golden-egg-laying goose we call a "free market" or "capitalism" tends to poop all over the barnyard--but until you can find me a goose that poops less or lays golden eggs more frequently, I think I'll stick with the one I have; and I'll thank you for putting down your axe and ceasing all this talk about foie gras recipes. 

I hope the survey omegaseamaster75 is going to do works out well but don't be surprised if it doesn't. In my personal experience, members react in very interesting ways when you mention parts of Church history that a lot of people think we should be either whispering about or not talking about it at all.
 
My former Bishop called me once asking me if I could help answering some questions regarding Church history to a member who was struggling. I sat down with both of them and we started going through the list of questions. When the issue of Polygamy was mentioned, particularly related to Joseph Smith and I was about to explain, the person interrupted me and kindly asked me to stop. I looked at the Bishop and he looked at me and then this member said "I do not want to know anything about it.". I said okay. When they left, this member apologized and said "I know I am wrong, but I don't want to know".

Good point. 
 
omegaseamaster75, I propose we change question 1 to:
1. Did you know that JS was sealed women who were already married?

No nod to choice there, huh?
 
Well, wikipedia said it, so...I guess agency is a lie.    

For a time the church early in our history tried to live by the law of consecration, however it seems like we were not quite ready for it. Much like God allowed divorce under the law of Moses not because it was okay, but because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. 
 
The nitty gritty of how it is to be implemented was not given (as far as my knowledge), there are some guidelines though, so there will be differing opinions on how to implement.
 
We are still to strive to live by it, which can be seen through service, fast offerings, and other charitable works.

This was a talk recently given in our general conference about poverty:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/are-we-not-all-beggars?lang=eng
 
It reflects the guidance we have been given today.

Latter day saints is fine :-) 
[to me lds/mormons is more of a nickname,from my view at least, some people prefer nicknames]

For a time the church early in our history tried to live by the law of consecration, however it seems like we were not quite ready for it. Much like God allowed divorce under the law of Moses not because it was okay, but because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. 
 
The nitty gritty of how it is to be implemented was not given (as far as my knowledge), there are some guidelines though, so there will be differing opinions on how to implement.
 
We are still to strive to live by it, which can be seen through service, fast offerings, and other charitable works.

This was a talk recently given in our general conference about poverty:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/are-we-not-all-beggars?lang=eng
 
It reflects the guidance we have been given today.

Latter day saints is fine :-) 
[to me lds/mormons is more of a nickname,from my view at least, some people prefer nicknames]

Well the scientific stance is "environment", but I've always seen environment as being affected by and chosen by the individual. To me it is a direct nod to choice, what do you think falls under environment? Everything that they couldn't pin on genes lol  
 
Wikipedia is a convenient summary view, I could pull more rigorous sources but they tend to be even less readable. IDK how all of you feel about wikipedia as a valid source, but i've written a report of it's reliability so feel free to open a debate about it

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration:
(take a look at the linked page!)
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants
   
First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'(

This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration:
(take a look at the linked page!)
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants
   
First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'(

This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration:
(take a look at the linked page!)
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants
   
First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'(

This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

This holds no interest for us "Mormons". Nor should it be your objective. Our objective, all of us, should be to alter our ideas so they are compatible with God's. Nothing more, nothing less. We believe that revealed truth (which does not play into politics much) gives us the truth of God's ideas, and therefore, we believe it behooves all mankind to alter their ideas to become compatible with said revealed truth. All we can do is testify that we have the truth and exhort others to pursue the same methods we did in finding that truth. Beyond that, no mortal persuasion or agreement holds any meaning.

His first name is Elder

Sleep...I probably should get more then I do.

I can only answer for myself.  It is personal and my individual effort while on the internet (not on all my writing) to keep sacred my references to G-d.  Also from time to time I will receive input from individual (usually not from an English speaking country) trying to get religious information from "Christians".  They thank me because they are not able to copy any text that spells out G-d.
 
Thanks for asking and not assuming.