zil

Well make me go ponder, why don't you!? :) These are very interesting thoughts. This way of saying it, that behavior choices impact how / which genes are expressed, makes sense to me, and I can see how one could tie it back to spiritual traits. I still have a hard time with the idea that I got a special "extra faith" gene and someone else got a special "extra charity" gene, just because of our behavior in pre-mortality - we both need the potential to grow into all faith and all charity, so I'm thinking we all have to have those genes (if there even are such genes). But I think I could accept the idea that based on my behavior in pre-mortality, I came with some "spiritual genes" turned on and others off; and depending on my behavior here, they stay on or go off or come on (greatly simplifying here, in case you can't tell). Shall we apply for a government grant now to study spiritual DNA? Or should we reformat our thread into a paper and try to get published first?

Regarding the cleaning crew, when I was younger, something in me prickled at the idea of "servants" (probably watched too much TV where only snobs had servants), especially in the case where one was physically capable of doing it oneself. Now I believe that creating honest, fair-paying (or generous-paying, if you can) jobs may well be the best thing you can do with money.

Finally found a related quote I was looking for. Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, Chapter 15: "But why did God give some superior advantages? Answer: to put their time, talents, and so on at the disposal of their less fortunate brethren, as God himself does when he makes it his work and his glory to exalt us lowly creatures (Moses 1:38-39)." This is in part where the generosity bit comes from - God wants us to be like him (and he is exceedingly generous). When we try, He blesses us so we can keep trying / try more. (Yes, I know this is not a guaranteed path to financial wealth or even stability, that's not what I'm trying to say.)

The simple answer is to do what the Lord tells you to do. Keep that in mind as you read the below (as it's the caveat and exception to all of the below). IMO, the answer is to never work for money. (That doesn't mean you don't expect a paycheck or take a better job, it means money isn't the reason you work.) I shall expound, because lots of people are having negative reactions right about now. * Find work you love (or at least enjoy), and excel at it. Be honest, have integrity. In my experience, this leads to improved work situations until you are in the ideal situation for you. It also leads you away from working with / for the dishonest and immoral. Better to earn less and be happy than to earn more and be miserable. * Don't let money be your focus / driver. Yes, we need to provide our own way (unless the Lord tells us otherwise), but our focus should be on being a good employee and providing for ourselves and our family, and others when possible, not on the number of zeros involved. * Don't let work push out the more important things (I think this goes with your question about 1 job or 2). Family time is more important than a promotion that requires an 80-hour work week. * Be generous (the scriptures make it clear, the Lord pays back generosity with even greater generosity) (generosity isn't always about money. Time, self, talents, trust, love, etc. can all be given generously - not that those excuse you from being generous with money, if possible, and if not possible, in your heart) And here are numerous scriptures to guide one's thoughts on this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26.31?lang=eng#30 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/18.27-28?lang=eng#26 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.18-19?lang=eng#17 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/46.7-9?lang=eng#6 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/104.15-18?lang=eng#14 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/59.18-21?lang=eng#17 ...it may not seem like these are all on point, but I think they are... FWIW.

My aunt and uncle have cable internet (Xfinity) and either they don't have cable tv, or it's not hooked up - I didn't ask which, I just know it's not hooked up to their 12" television that's never used (and they have no other TVs). FWIW. I think I mentioned elsewhere, cable television (don't know about satellite) is highly controlled by government (at least in Utah), and not just in expectable (new word for Firefox's dictionary) ways (taxes, no smut), but right down to which channels are available in which city. I declined to continue participation in such evil... I think this is why prices don't react well to the market - city government are involved, and government ruins everything (no offense to Adam Conover).

"This means we receive a right to priesthood blessings from our blood ancestry" Not to burst anyone's bubble, but we're all descended from Adam, so technically.... Or you could point to Noah... I'm perfectly OK with other truths, just pointing out the obvious way in which anyone has a blood-relation with priesthood authority. I've heard various things about Joseph Smith's blood ancestry. Since I have no documentation or anything, I'll not bother to repeat them, but I'm OK with any / all / none of them being true. I would note that descendancy does not require that spiritual gifts be tied to DNA, but that the scriptures make it perfectly clear descendancy has a big impact on our lives (somewhat obvious, just from thinking about it). ("descendancy" is also not in Firefox's dictionary, even when spelled correctly.) Somewhere, either Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) or Brigham Young (Discourses of Brigham Young) said words which make it seem that the Holy Ghost has a different impact on those of Israelite blood than gentile blood, and that when a person is adopted into the house of Israel, their blood is changed. Now if that's true, I expect it's changed in some way that doesn't show up on medical tests, or there would have been a paper on some convert who happened to have blood work done before and after, and the doctors were perplexed by the difference. :) There are mysteries, to be sure (even if these aren't among them, but are only misunderstandings or rumors).

Don't you hate it when words you know were there just get up and walk away! It's very rude. They should at least leave a "be back in 10 minutes" sign, or something... :)

I tried Doctrines of Salvation (1-3) and The Way to Perfection. No joy.

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/what-happens-after-we-die?lang=eng "What do spirits look like? People’s spirits had an adult form in premortal life and will have that same form in the spirit world, even if they die as infants or children." https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng "All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32)." https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-15?lang=eng ...the quote is too long. Read the entire section titled "After the resurrection, a child’s body will grow to match the stature of the spirit." Now maybe you're right and they're just not communicating clearly, and perhaps they mean that all of the pre-mortal spirits have been around so long that they've all matured, but that sure isn't what it sounds like to me. Meanwhile, I'm sure once the veil is removed, we're all going to be laughing over some of our mortal stupidities. :)

Thanks, Anddenex! My primary objection to using the acronym "DNA" is simply that if all spirits are adult in form, it would imply they don't need that kind of "building instructions" - they need some other kind (though I could be wrong, I mean we're clearly created somehow, it's just that our spirits apparently don't go through embryo-childhood-maturity stages). I prefer to call it "something else" or "building block X" or whatever. (Also, in part, because my Aunt seemed to be suggesting there was DNA-style building going on, and even that our agency might could influence our DNA, and both of those triggered strong "no" reactions in me.) But I understand the need to call it something. Personally, I highly doubt spiritual procreation involves 9 months of gestation followed by labor, but I could be wrong. (Though this doesn't jive with the whole "all spirits are in adult form" - unless someone left something out (and is perhaps giggling behind their hand right now).) Meanwhile, here's a boring word for you: Auger. And here's a non-boring word for you: Postum (I'm enjoying mine right now).

I guess I have to quit (entirely) blaming my mom's side of the family. :) One summer in college, I did grounds keeping at a cemetery. By the end of the summer I was blond and tan. Two weeks later, it was all gone... Did you watch the X-Files? There was an episode titled "Gender Bender" - with humans instead of fish... :) (Let's keep this our little secret - if some of the men on the forums got sight of that, they might have palpitations at the thought of becoming alpha female when their wife dies! )

Well, to be fair, the car has been the death of an awful lot of us. Not sure about the phone (the CDC doesn't keep stats on death by telephone). NOTE: I do think the amount and extent of wickedness in the world is increasing, but so is its righteousness, and the gap between them is widening, and all this will continue (as prophesied). That doesn't mean that certain things (some of those you mentioned) aren't better than ever - even the wicked can increase their standard of living.

Now, can we have a poll about posting poles?

Jane - thanks for sticking with me and sharing your expertise! See? I knew I was gonna have to tweak my answer. Although, the closest I see in there to having agency-like control of my DNA is #4 - I choose the right environmental factors, and I can influence my DNA. (Of course, does this all happen during developmental stages rather than after maturity? And still, unless I know specifics, I can't really choose it, so much as cause it...) Still, this increases the probability, in my mind, that DNA might have something to do with it and we just don't understand what or how. But until we can tie it together with pre-mortal agency without binding mortal-agency, I'm still inclined to believe the connection improbable. I think it far more probable (to the point of almost certainty) that whatever dictated my appearance in pre-mortality was tied straight into my mortal DNA so that mortal-me would look mostly like pre-mortal-me. I'm just not ready to accept the notion that the same is true for behaviors, preferences, learned skills, etc. NOTE: I have no problem with the idea of inheriting things from Heavenly Parents like I did from my earthly parents - seems kinda obvious, I'm just not going to assert that it has to be DNA-ish, given all the above stuff I've posted.

My initial reaction to my Aunt's idea was based on: 1) my memory from a biology class that DNA is used to construct an organism. For example, my eye, hair, and skin colors are dictated by DNA. My gender and height are dictated by DNA. Embryo-me processes the encoding of my DNA to generate those cells needed to output what's in their plan (all that stuff that makes the physical me, me). Conscious me gets no say in the matter. 2) the following from Gospel Principles, chapter 41: "All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32)." ...which I had learned eons ago (couldn't remember where or when and had to use google to help me find it). Now, given those two things, the idea of "spiritual DNA as the instructions for building a spirit" seems rather improbable to me (since it apparently isn't built as an embryo that grows into a mature organism, but starts out as an adult). Further, per Joseph Smith, spirits are eternal in nature, so this seems to negate the need for continual reproduction of cells (to replace those that die off - unless you're mortal, why would your cells die?). However, I fully acknowledge that I have no clue what the mechanics are for creating or maintaining a spirit being, so maybe there is something akin to DNA. Personally, I suspect some other mechanism which works in some other way. But that's just my gut feeling. That leaves the altering of physical DNA to incorporate spiritual attributes of the kind described in Alma 13 (that part is crucial, because this piece was central to and the source of my Aunt's theory). Those attributes include things like faith, repentance, obedience, good works, use of agency to choose good, etc. on the good side; and on the bad side, things like hardheartedness, blindness, rejecting the Spirit. Now remember, I get no conscious say in at least some things we know DNA is responsible for (see list above). To me, this means that I have no agency in relation to (at least those things dictated by) DNA (e.g. I cannot use my agency to alter my eye color). Therefore, if my DNA were "encoded with faith", where is my agency to choose whether or not to be faithful? That said, I believe that these things live in our intelligence. That if in the pre-mortal world I developed great faith, or obedience, or whatever, it is as much a part of my spirit and intelligence before mortality as it is a part of me during mortality - that I don't remember how my spirit developed these things (what I did / thought) does not negate the chance that my spirit is still benefiting from pre-mortal mastery. But I believe these are behaviors and choices, not instructions or even preferences in my DNA. Further, we know that all of God's children have the option, through their agency, of becoming like him. In order for this to happen, all of us must have the potential to do every good thing, to become perfect (otherwise, the option is a lie, and God doesn't lie). Now if my DNA says I have exceeding faith, but that I'm a little low on charity; whereas someone else has some other combination of DNA-encoded spiritual attributes, how do we reconcile this DNA-encoding with our scripturally-documented potential to become like God - perfect in every attribute. Given all that, I can't even see DNA as defining that I have the potential, if things work out right in mortality and I choose well, to have exceeding faith - because everyone would have to have that same genetic potential, thus making it non-unique to me, thus ruining the idea that it is unique to me because of my spiritual attributes developed pre-mortally. Finally, as noted above, we really have no clue, so I suppose anything is possible, but neither idea seems rational to me. On the other hand, memory, habit, skill, discipline, and all other behaviors and attributes developed through agency and living in the mind as a consequence of those things, seems perfectly rational, and compatible with the doctrines of the gospel as I understand them... (If you made it this far, thank you! Here's two thumbs up and a bunch of balloons for you: )

SpiritDragon - thanks! Am off to re-read that article. Back in a while. (Back) Well, there's certainly a principle there if you're willing to see it - that physical attributes do not (necessarily) reflect one's behavior in pre-mortality (or at least, aren't used as punishment). (I'm imagining arguments all along the spectrum here.) Decided to post my thoughts on my Aunt's theory in a separate post, cuz it's a puppy.

All, Thanks for your thoughts so far - they're sincerely appreciated. Crypto, when you say "born lowly", do you mean with physical challenges (e.g. the sort that can be tied to DNA)? (If so, then, yes, I've heard this idea before; if not, I'm not sure how it relates.) MyShorty & Jane: my ideas are similar to yours (and I'll expound shortly), and I appreciate reading the variations between our thoughts. If anyone else has thoughts, please chime in. Thanks! (My thoughts next, but they may have to change depending on Jane's grading of my science sentence. )

Jane, It might help things if you could check my extremely high-level ideas of the purpose of DNA in a mortal (I haven't had a biology class on this since the 1980s, I think, so I could be all wrong or way out of date): My understanding is that DNA is basically instructions on how to construct something from specific raw materials. If that's accurate, it seems like DNA would only be useful for something that needs constructing (initial or on-going). Am I close?

Somewhat related to this thread is a very interesting article called "What is Wrong with Multiculturalism". Try it out, if interested: "Thirty years ago multiculturalism was widely seen as the answer to many of Europe’s social problems. Today it is seen, by growing numbers of people, not as the solution to, but as the cause of, Europe’s myriad social ills. That perception has been fuel for the success of far-right parties and populist politicians across Europe from Geert Wilders in Holland to Marine Le Pen in France, from the True Finns to the UK Independence Party. It even provided fuel for the obscene, homicidal rampage last year of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and Utøya, which in his eyes were the first shots in a war defending Europe against multiculturalism. The reasons for this transformation in the perception of multiculturalism are complex, and at the heart of what I want to talk about. But before we can discuss what the problem is with multiculturalism, we first have unpack what we mean by multiculturalism."

Over the holidays, my aunt was trying to describe to me an idea which she said she developed while reading Alma 13, especially verses 3-12 (which speaks about foreordination, among other things). Unfortunately, I don't think I fully understood what she was trying to say, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see what people think. Her idea was that either (it was unclear to me which of these she believed, or whether it was both): * One has spiritual DNA... and/or * One's mortal DNA is directly influenced by how one behaved in pre-mortality... ...such that spiritual gifts or attributes (e.g. exceeding faith), are coded into our DNA (perhaps not as a guarantee, but definitely as a possibility or even probability - again, it was unclear to me what she believed to be the extent of the influence of this "spiritual DNA"). Rather than write my thoughts now (lest I sway your opinion), I'd appreciate your thoughts. (And if we happen to have a biologist in the room, I'd love to know your thoughts!)

Sweet! Clearly it's been too long since I watched! Exactly! I love talking and teaching in church, not afraid of them at all - even when the Stake President is present. But I have to plan for a ward party / Relief Society activity, so that my energy levels are recharged, and so I know I can come home afterward and recover, not from the people (who I enjoy), but from the expended energy.

Sorry for going off topic, but it's come up so much with some false assumptions, that I'm gonna post.... From my understanding, if you feel drained when you get home, you're likely an introvert. (In the below, when I say "stimulation" it just means electrical / chemical stimulation going on inside your brain.) Introvert vs. Extrovert has nothing to do with whether you like people (though it would be awfully hard to be an extrovert who dislikes people). It has everything to do with your natural mental energy level and the source of that energy: 1) Introverts expend mental energy when interacting with other people (when it's over, they feel drained and need time alone to recharge). Introverts recharge their batteries alone. a) Being shy has nothing to do with this - shy is simply being uncomfortable around people for some (often specific) reason / fear. Many may confuse introversion with being shy, but they are not directly related, and extroverts can be shy (which is very hard on them). 2) Extroverts expend mental energy when alone. To recharge, they interact with other people (and when it's over, they feel energized or refreshed). For both kinds of people, excessive interaction with people causes over-stimulation which is felt as stress or anxiety. Too little time with people results in sadness or even depression. "Excessive" and "too little" are determined by your internal brain stimulation level (without external influence). If the stimulation is naturally high, you're an introvert and interaction with others can more easily push you into "too much" (and "too little" is harder to reach). If the stimulation is naturally low, you're an extrovert and need lots of interaction with others to keep from getting bored, and "too much" is a lot harder to reach (and "too little" is easier to reach). Now clearly, this is a spectrum, not an on/off thing. Thus, someone could be right in the middle of this ("ambivert" as LP has called it). Both types of people can enjoy company, and love it when something they're passionate about is involved. Both types can also enjoy solitary activities. It's not about the type of activity or interaction, it's about energy levels / sources. Though introversion is more often treated as a problem because it's misunderstood by both types of people, often leading to introverts avoiding interaction because they don't understand their own reactions, and leading extroverts to treat them like they've got a problem (often a choice problem) because they don't understand it either. Yes, this is the dumbed-down version ala Zil, but if everyone understood this, and treated themselves and each other accordingly, we'd all have much more positive relationships and interactions. (I know my relationships and interactions are much better for my understanding - and, despite being an introvert, it's _much_ easier for me to spend time with people now.)

IMO, none of this is surprising given what the scriptures and modern prophets teach us. The proper response is to do as we have always been taught by those same sources. When Church leadership tell us it's time to hasten the work of salvation, it should be a given that Satan is stepping up his efforts too.

IMO, this directly conflicts with what Joseph Smith taught about the eternal nature of intelligences (D&C 93, and more details in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith). Beyond that, we have no foundation for any further detail.

PS: What about uninhabited planets? Are we sure our fellow-orbiters around this sun will continue to exist after the earth is exalted? Or will their matter be reused elsewhere? (I have no idea and can see reasonable arguments for both, just pointing out that not all worlds are inhabited (at any given moment, anyway).)