askandanswer

Can anyone suggest what the relationship might be between the stuff that emanates, on the one hand, from my light bulb, and the sun, and a fire, and, on the other hand, the stuff referred to in Doctrine and Covenants 88: 7-13? Are they different forms of the same thing? Are they completely different things that happen to use the same word - light- to describe them? Is the word we use for the stuff coming from my light bulb simply an analogy for the light referred to in the scriptures? Or is there some other answer? We have a guy in our stake with a Ph.D in physics, with a special interest in light, and he is not aware of any LDS or scientific studies that have considered this question, but the scriptures seem to suggest that there is a connection between these two types of light.

This might be part of the answer, but in any General Conference session, only about half the speakers will be apostles, leaving plenty of room for other apostles to pray.

I was just wondering why we never see prophets or apostles praying in General Conference, or Area Conferences. Any thoughts anyone? We see them pray at temple dedications and other temple related events, and in their General Conference addresses we sometimes hear them make reference to their prayers, but we very rarely actually see it.

But if we bless the lunch, and the same food is still on the table for dinner, do we need to bless it again? What's the situation when it comes to blessing left-overs which have previously been blessed? I know someone who changed the "standard wording" when giving a blessing on the food. Instead of asking Heavenly Father to bless the food, he would say "I bless this food". When I asked him about this he explained that as a holder of the Priesthood, he could bless the food, and therefore didn't need to ask Heavenly Father to do it, and suggested that it might be wrong to ask Heavenly Father to do something he said we could do ourselves.

I'm sorry for your temporary loss. Hopefully it won't be too long before the grief that he is gone begins to be diluted with gratitude for his life. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortalmust put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Yes Mordorbund, when I came across that quote from the King Follet discourse that said that matter is eternal, then that answered my original question about how the three initial statements could be reconciled - it seems that no reconciliation is needed because they are all true.

And of course, these psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates may well be design features that God has built into the brain to enable us to gain a spiritual confirmation of His existence. Perhaps these "quirks" are the means, or the channel through which we obtain and grow our faith.

I realise that the following is quite a diversion from the OP but I'm going to say it anyway, and if it proves to be sufficiently interesting, perhaps someone could make it into a new post. The idea that as Man now is God once was and as God now is man may become suggests the possibility that there are many ex-men out there who are now gods of some sort, and that some of them, or maybe all of them, pre-date our God. If that is the case, no doubt they would also have their own kingdoms and their kingdoms might be territories into which our God's kingdom(s?) could not rightfully expand.

The following quote from the King Follette discourse seems to suggest that matter is eternal. If that is the case, no reconciliation is needed, as all three statements could be considered as true. That conclusion would then raise questions about the accuracy of the big bang theory. Any response from adherents to the big bang theory? https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

From a religious perspective, it seems to me that the scriptures contain numerous tests and experiments that we are invited and even urged to follow to prove the existence of God - James 1:5, Alma 32, Moroni 10:3-5 etc. If a person fails to gain satisfactory responses from these experiments, it may be that the fault is not with the experiment, but with the experimenter, perhaps either by failing to carry out the experiment with the right frame of mind, or by not understanding/recognising/accepting the results of the experiment. An important part of any experiment is make sure that the instruments used to capture data are able to perform the required functions, and are properly calibrated, suitable for the the experiment and fully functional. For experiments involving proving the existence of God, the required instruments are an informed faith, humility, a heart and mind that are open to receiving divine data, and a degree of repentance. When these instruments are in place and properly calibrated, many people should, and indeed do, come to know for themselves the divine reality of God's existence. The experiments having been successfully tried and replicated by millions of people in all countries and continents, over a period of centuries, I think the onus lies on agnostics and atheists to explain why this is insufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.

Why all this debate about whether or not evolution is real? Surely the favourite activity of God the Evolutionist is to bring beings from a lower to a higher state? Isnt that what eternal progression is all about? When we look at the whole history/evolution of our consciousness, we clearly see, and are taught, that we started as an intelligence, which, probably through making the right choices, was then joined to a spirit, which then became a mortal, and which will then become an immortal, and then, hopefully, a god. This sounds like a form of evolution to me. I think it is more than just adaptation, it is changing from one type to another, from a butterfly to a moth to a dragon. There is room to speculate that entering into eternal marriage may mark the beginning of part of the evolutionary process when two beings become one, and I think it would be quite wrong to think that the transition from man to god is simply an adaptation and not a type of evolution.

Three ideas: 1. Our spirits are made of matter (D&C 131:7) 2. Our spirits are gnolaum – that is, without beginning or end (Abraham 3:18) 3. Matter had a beginning, only coming into existence sometime after the Big Bang Can these statements be reconciled with each other ? If so, how? If not, which one is not true or needs to be reinterpreted/reconstructured?

from Bruce R McKonkie devotional entitled seven deadly heresies, given at BYU in 1980 http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658 Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were. This belief lulls men into a state of carnal security. It causes them to say, "God is so merciful; surely he will save us all eventually; if we do not gain the celestial kingdom now, eventually we will; so why worry?" It lets people live a life of sin here and now with the hope that they will be saved eventually. The true doctrine is that all men will be resurrected, but they will come forth in the resurrection with different kinds of bodies—some celestial, others terrestrial, others telestial, and some with bodies incapable of standing any degree of glory. The body we receive in the resurrection determines the glory we receive in the kingdoms that are prepared. Of those in the telestial world it is written: "And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end" (D&C 76:112). Of those who had the opportunity to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in this life and who did not do it, the revelation says: Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven; which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. [D&C 132:16–17] They neither progress from one kingdom to another, nor does a lower kingdom ever get where a higher kingdom once was. Whatever eternal progression there is, it is within a sphere.

In the post-mortal life we will know and remember things from our pre-mortal life that we currently do not. I believe that one of those things that we do not adequately remember from our pre-mortal life is joy and excitement about God's plan of salvation and our happiness at the opportunities it provides to learn and progress. In the post mortal life, when we remember these things, and then remember that, like your friends, some of us rejected this plan, I believe that knowing that we rejected something that we previously knew provided us with the greatest opportunity for the greatest possible happiness, will generate a mental/emotional that could be described as hell.

I think there might be room to debate the question of the degree of David's culpability in the death of Uria. It's possible that those who have spoken and speculated on the topic and accused David of murder have not thought through all the many different legal phrases and terminologies that are used to describe the series of actions that directly, or indirectly, result in the death of another person, with each different phrase reflecting a different degree of culpability - eg, murder in the first degree, second degree, manslaughter, accessory to murder, etc. Exactly which kind of killing is the kind that attracts as its penalty eternal punishment? The facts show that David did not directly kill Uriah - that was done by somebody else - but that he engaged in a course of action that he hoped and believed, but possibly might not, lead to Uriah's death. Is that the same as murder, the kind of murder that damn's a person for eternity? In addition, surely, David, as commander-in-chief had the right to decide how to employ his troops. And surely it makes good sense to put some of his best troops into the hottest part of the battle? And possibly if Uriah had been a better soldier, he might have prevailed and the battle might have turned in the Israelite's favour. Or the Lord could have divinely intervened, as He occasionally did in the Israelite's battles, and completely changed the outcome. Or Joab, or the men under his command -as occasionally happened - might have chosen to disregard, or not follow to its fullest extent, David's orders to withdraw from Uriah. Or a hundred other possibilities. And surely David knew that every time he engaged in battle, that in effect, he was sending many, many of his people to be killed. Is one more person any different? Is David's degree of culpability significantly different from any front-line LDS commander who knowingly sends his troops into a hopeless situation, knowing that many will be killed?

Dessert: Apple crumble, (not pie) with lots of vanilla ice cream Sound: Hallelujah chorus from Handel's Messiah Scripture: Sermon on the Mount Movie: Same as beehfche but Return of the King

We chose which side of the war in heaven we would be on. That sounds like the exercise of agency to me.

Surely my existence is proof of evolution? LDS doctrine, which I passionately believe in, teaches me that I have evolved from an intelligence, to a spirit being, to a being with a physical body, and that if I make the right choices, that I will further evolve/progress to an eternal being and maybe even a god. Is that not a form of evolution: to change from a lower state to a higher state?

Thanks very much polar and dragon, these are both quite useful, particularly the reference in D&C 52.

I think that God created the earth and its inhabitants through a process of evolution. The idea of evolution seems to fit in very nicely with the idea of how we learn and progress - line upon line, here a little and there a little. Quite possibly, when the evolutionary process proceeded down a dead end path, or failed to proceed along the desired path, God gave it a little nudge to change its direction or speed it along. I don't say that I hold the following belief, but I just put it out as a possibility that may be worth considering - perhaps the difference between Adam and Eve, and all those almost human like creatures that may have proceeded them is that Adam and Eve may have been the first to have been given the light of Christ, thus making them fully human and children of a heavenly father, and susceptible to resurrection and eternal life whilst all those who proceeded them did not have the light of Christ and might not have such an opportunity.Just an idea.

Can anyone point me to any scriptures or prophetic or apostolic teachings that teach or emphasise that God is a God or order and that He usually follows the same procedures and routines when He does what He does? I’m looking for scriptures or teachings that highlight that God, when unfolding His plan for us, and carrying out His works, usually keeps to the same patterns or methods that He has used previously. The scriptures that best give a sense of what I’m looking for are the ones that teach that the Lords house is a house or order, or that the course of the Lord is one eternal round, or that God is an unchanging God, but if anybody can add to this very short list, or point me to some modern day teachings that add to or clarify the idea that God usually follows the same methodology, that would be very much appreciated. Many thanks

My suspicion is that, within his area of jurisdiction, God is free to decide what is and what is not good, but that His decisions must be in conformity with a set of higher laws to which even God is subject. There's a bunch of scriptural evidence to suggest that God is subject to laws not of His making. These higher laws might or might not constitute, or be based on, some sort of objective goodness, or they might again be based on some sort of even higher law ( I doubt it), but we don't know enough to make any valid conclusions on that question. Once God has decided that something is good, then for all intents and purposes, for us here on this earth at this time, that decisions becomes our objective goodness.