Traveler

Building off of this--
 
In science we use our brains and evidence to best understand the world.  Once a theory is presented and generally accepted (say Darwin's evolution), we then build off of that.  We can go back and re-examine Darwin's evolution evolution (many have), but for day-to-day functioning we don't because it's exhausting to constantly be re-checking your previous work.  Instead, we go back and re-check old theories when there's a reason to: like something doesn't jive with new evidence. 
 
Human understanding of theology is similar, but with God occasionally dropping by and giving magical perfect answers.  

It is the nature of who and what we are.  Men an women are different and the marriage (covenant sacrifice of self and the coming together for the greater good) of that specific difference brings about a whole that is far greater than the sum of the parts.  --- This includes the accomplishment of good as well as the resistance of evil.  Thus involvement in a dedication to the covenant of marriage (not just one's individual marriage - but marriage as a divine institution for all seeking truth and right) is not an arbitrary requirement but a necessity in bringing about a divine destiny. 

Enoch - in the ancient Book of Enoch wrote that elements are, of necessity, corrupted over time in our universe but are cycled constantly to be renewed and purified inside stars in order to maintain their eternal purpose.  The ancient Egyptians believed the secret of things eternal is that they continually pass through cycles like the seasons. 
 
The idea of cycles is strongly embedded in the scripture notion of types and shadows.  (see for example - Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

It's also worth pointing out that just because a person doesn't find a spouse in this life, doesn't mean they can't have one in the next (all things done in God's wisdom).

It is the nature of who and what we are.  Men an women are different and the marriage (covenant sacrifice of self and the coming together for the greater good) of that specific difference brings about a whole that is far greater than the sum of the parts.  --- This includes the accomplishment of good as well as the resistance of evil.  Thus involvement in a dedication to the covenant of marriage (not just one's individual marriage - but marriage as a divine institution for all seeking truth and right) is not an arbitrary requirement but a necessity in bringing about a divine destiny. 

It is the nature of who and what we are.  Men an women are different and the marriage (covenant sacrifice of self and the coming together for the greater good) of that specific difference brings about a whole that is far greater than the sum of the parts.  --- This includes the accomplishment of good as well as the resistance of evil.  Thus involvement in a dedication to the covenant of marriage (not just one's individual marriage - but marriage as a divine institution for all seeking truth and right) is not an arbitrary requirement but a necessity in bringing about a divine destiny. 

There is a very big difference between - putting an animal in a barn (caging, tying up, or binding) and bridling an animal.  A bridle on an animal is like a rudder on a boat -  It is a means to control an animal to go somewhere under control.  A bridle is a means of control - not chains of prevention.
 
I have been an advocate of desires, passions and appetites  -- that these things can be used for our benefit.  But they must be kept under control and not let loos - without a bridle to trample cultivated areas or run of some cliff somewhere.  There are some that think any such desires are the essence of the "natural man".  I strongly disagree.  I believe such things are to be kept in submission to spiritual intelligence and reasonable reason.
 
It seems to me that some are of the mind that desires, passions and appetites cannot be controlled - that even trying to control is evil at its core - but I believe such is the purpose of religion and civil law - to define the limits and what happens to cage those that cannot or will not control themselves.

I believe you are asking the wrong question.  I believe that through marriage a man and a woman can accomplish a great deal more than any individual could possibly accomplish or even hope to accomplish on their own.  I do not believe G-d could be G-d without marriage to a woman.  This is the problem I have with feminism - because it focuses on the accomplishments of the individual instead of the accomplishment of a union of differences.  This issue, according to my understanding, of individualism is at the very heart and core in understanding "The knowledge of good and evil".

More scripture about the resurrection and where the resurrected bodies will come from:
 
Matt 27:52
 
Helaman 14:25
 
D&C 133:56
 
 
This all looks very simple to me - that physical body that was dead will be made alive and it looks like the physical stuff that was in the graves will be gone.  That is the doctrine as I understand these scriptures.   The resurrection of Christ was not unique and different from the saints as I understand scripture. 
 
Mosiah 16:10
 
It would appear that this physical stuff is going to be made into something quite wonderful.  But again - it looks like the stuff we die with will be the stuff we are resurrected with.  As a side note - I also believe it is very important to take care of this physical stuff that is our body and not horde so much more than we need.

The one imperial example we have is Jesus and the evidence that the tomb, according to eye witnesses, was empty. I do not believe that G-d leaves deceptive evidence to confuse the truth. We are left to believe, from scriptural imperial evidence, that Jesus was resurrected with the same body and elements of natter that were laid to rest in the tomb.

The one imperial example we have is Jesus and the evidence that the tomb, according to eye witnesses, was empty. I do not believe that G-d leaves deceptive evidence to confuse the truth. We are left to believe, from scriptural imperial evidence, that Jesus was resurrected with the same body and elements of natter that were laid to rest in the tomb.

The beginning of the end happened with Joseph Smith and the translation of the  Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel.

Being one does not mean being equal.  See Abraham chapter 3. -- whenever there are two one will be greater (more outstanding and unique) than the other.  Jesus was one with the Father and always said that the father was greater (more outstanding and unique) than him.  If you have a problem with Jesus and this doctrine - I would suggest you take up this point with him.  Trying to make this point with me is not likely the best things to do - since you are most likely greater than I.  At least in the knowledge of this - but then that would prove my point???  :)

I can only speak for myself.  But I realize that we all begin with certain assumptions.  We are colored by our religious and scientific upbringing.  Obviously I have prejudices - I believe we all do.  Even those that are called in the priesthood to positions of presiding have their prejudices.  Sometimes our prejudices spill over into our separate positions of importance or earned respect.   For myself I try to understand what unproven assumptions others are making in order to from their conclusions.  I also often question my own assumptions using what I understand in studying as best I can and asking for divine conformation.  I do this in my work as well as well as my religion. 99% of the time it seems to me that my answers are incomplete - often confirming that I am making progress but have a long way to go.  Sometimes in discussions - as occur on this forum; I try to warn others that appear to be pursuing dead-end incomplete concepts.  I only say this because such concepts seem to prevent them from progressing towards a more complete understanding.
 
Because of our prejudices we tend to filter evidence.  This happened in the scientific community concerning the possibility that dinosaurs are warm blooded and not cold blooded.   After over 100 years of research confirming the warm blooded possibility - many still view dinosaurs as cold blooded.  But even more troubling is that the bone structures of the very large dinosaurs could not support the mass of the creatures with the force of gravity on our current earth.  No one has ever presented a plausible explanation of this paradox.  We are left with conflicting evidence and the fact that the creatures did exist - but some critical an important information is missing. 
 
I believe that same conundrum exist with our religious story of Adam and Eve in Eden.  I honestly believe that the scriptural epoch is incomplete and a great deal of critical and important information is missing.  For example when I encounter those that insist that Adam was the first man - I am convinced that they do not understand that well what man is in that context as it relates to earth empirical history.  I am not saying they are wrong - just that they are making assumptions that are not complete.  That it is possible that being fallen our understanding is corrupted and as we gather more information and revelation those holding to notions out of prejudice will only become more conflicted and confused.  Then when it appears that various prejudices overly colored conclusions we want to discard all that was previously achieved - or as some would say - throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Religious leaders without scientific background tend toward very different conclusion than religious leaders that have studied science extensively.  Thus we will see very different conclusions from individuals like Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage.  One error I think we often make is in thinking that being right is associated with being righteous.  I think that being teachable is more important than being right - just as being kind and loving in a marriage is more important than being right.  I am convinced that Prison Chaplin has a lot of goofy ideas about things and that he does not think very much through - but I am also convinced he is a much better person than I am - so for the most part I respect and honor his ideas even though they make little sense to me.  I have a great need to stay connected and develop friendships with people like him to keep my prejudices from spilling over where they shouldn't.

???? So LDS missionaries wearing white shirts and ties - being clean shaving etc... (distinguishing them selves) is an evil expression of vanity????
 
Though I was not talking about how individuals dress but rather other distinguishing physical characteristics - such as eye color, hair color or skin pigment or such things.  Also good grooming - bathing once in a while, brushing one's teeth is all good.  I honestly believe that recognizing one's individuality and taking care of one's physical self - is all good.  I am just wondering where you got the idea that any and all distinguishing one's self, being independent or self reliant is pure evil to the core???
 
BTW - I am short - shorter than my wife but I never thought that to be an actual problem.

First – I do not have the time to read through all this thread.  Sorry. 
 
As a scientist and individual trained to deal with rhetorical logic as applied to empirical evidence I would add some thoughts.  I am often bewildered how individuals looking at the exact same evidence so often come up with divergent conclusions.  But the reality is that we know how this happens and have documented this occurring.  
 
The problem is that divergent results are caused by one of the following:
1.  A faulty premise – In mathematics we call this “given” parameters.
2. Flawed methodology.
 
I have observed that often individuals arriving at flawed conclusions will not appreciate corrections – regardless of how badly flawed their premise or methodology.   I believe this is most often caused by some innate predisposition or proclivity for a particular result.  In short we have our paradigm and tend to ignore anything that contradicts or seems to contradict the paradigm.   Thus we tend to assume any divergence from our paradigm contains a flaw.  This is despite the fact that we may have access to much better, or dare I say – a divine paradigm.   I submit that for this reason the Jews (being the most trusted covenant humans by G-d and the peoples through whom the scriptures came) rejected Christ the very Son of G-d.   In Luke chapter 3 we see the arch type of flawed logic as Satan tempts Jesus by quoting scripture.
 
In the Book of Mormon the prophet Alma suggests an experiment.  The ancient notion of finding the reconciliation of man with G-d through the symbolic planting of a seed which is also outlined carefully by Christ as he points out that there is more than one way to fail this experiment in the famous parable of the sower.  Not all planted seeds produce fruit.   The other great problem is that many have preconceived notions of what fruit is or ought to be. 
 
Of one thing I am quite sure – those that cannot differentiate the false or counterfeit fruit from the genuine most likely have substituted their desired counterfeit conclusion for genuine article.  The same logic applies for those that claim there is in reality only counterfeit (meaning differing copies of the genuine article) and no actual genuine article.

First – I do not have the time to read through all this thread.  Sorry. 
 
As a scientist and individual trained to deal with rhetorical logic as applied to empirical evidence I would add some thoughts.  I am often bewildered how individuals looking at the exact same evidence so often come up with divergent conclusions.  But the reality is that we know how this happens and have documented this occurring.  
 
The problem is that divergent results are caused by one of the following:
1.  A faulty premise – In mathematics we call this “given” parameters.
2. Flawed methodology.
 
I have observed that often individuals arriving at flawed conclusions will not appreciate corrections – regardless of how badly flawed their premise or methodology.   I believe this is most often caused by some innate predisposition or proclivity for a particular result.  In short we have our paradigm and tend to ignore anything that contradicts or seems to contradict the paradigm.   Thus we tend to assume any divergence from our paradigm contains a flaw.  This is despite the fact that we may have access to much better, or dare I say – a divine paradigm.   I submit that for this reason the Jews (being the most trusted covenant humans by G-d and the peoples through whom the scriptures came) rejected Christ the very Son of G-d.   In Luke chapter 3 we see the arch type of flawed logic as Satan tempts Jesus by quoting scripture.
 
In the Book of Mormon the prophet Alma suggests an experiment.  The ancient notion of finding the reconciliation of man with G-d through the symbolic planting of a seed which is also outlined carefully by Christ as he points out that there is more than one way to fail this experiment in the famous parable of the sower.  Not all planted seeds produce fruit.   The other great problem is that many have preconceived notions of what fruit is or ought to be. 
 
Of one thing I am quite sure – those that cannot differentiate the false or counterfeit fruit from the genuine most likely have substituted their desired counterfeit conclusion for genuine article.  The same logic applies for those that claim there is in reality only counterfeit (meaning differing copies of the genuine article) and no actual genuine article.

I can only speak for myself.  But I realize that we all begin with certain assumptions.  We are colored by our religious and scientific upbringing.  Obviously I have prejudices - I believe we all do.  Even those that are called in the priesthood to positions of presiding have their prejudices.  Sometimes our prejudices spill over into our separate positions of importance or earned respect.   For myself I try to understand what unproven assumptions others are making in order to from their conclusions.  I also often question my own assumptions using what I understand in studying as best I can and asking for divine conformation.  I do this in my work as well as well as my religion. 99% of the time it seems to me that my answers are incomplete - often confirming that I am making progress but have a long way to go.  Sometimes in discussions - as occur on this forum; I try to warn others that appear to be pursuing dead-end incomplete concepts.  I only say this because such concepts seem to prevent them from progressing towards a more complete understanding.
 
Because of our prejudices we tend to filter evidence.  This happened in the scientific community concerning the possibility that dinosaurs are warm blooded and not cold blooded.   After over 100 years of research confirming the warm blooded possibility - many still view dinosaurs as cold blooded.  But even more troubling is that the bone structures of the very large dinosaurs could not support the mass of the creatures with the force of gravity on our current earth.  No one has ever presented a plausible explanation of this paradox.  We are left with conflicting evidence and the fact that the creatures did exist - but some critical an important information is missing. 
 
I believe that same conundrum exist with our religious story of Adam and Eve in Eden.  I honestly believe that the scriptural epoch is incomplete and a great deal of critical and important information is missing.  For example when I encounter those that insist that Adam was the first man - I am convinced that they do not understand that well what man is in that context as it relates to earth empirical history.  I am not saying they are wrong - just that they are making assumptions that are not complete.  That it is possible that being fallen our understanding is corrupted and as we gather more information and revelation those holding to notions out of prejudice will only become more conflicted and confused.  Then when it appears that various prejudices overly colored conclusions we want to discard all that was previously achieved - or as some would say - throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Religious leaders without scientific background tend toward very different conclusion than religious leaders that have studied science extensively.  Thus we will see very different conclusions from individuals like Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage.  One error I think we often make is in thinking that being right is associated with being righteous.  I think that being teachable is more important than being right - just as being kind and loving in a marriage is more important than being right.  I am convinced that Prison Chaplin has a lot of goofy ideas about things and that he does not think very much through - but I am also convinced he is a much better person than I am - so for the most part I respect and honor his ideas even though they make little sense to me.  I have a great need to stay connected and develop friendships with people like him to keep my prejudices from spilling over where they shouldn't.

I will respond quickly – I believe this subject is critical in understanding the purpose of life and divine nature.   If we try to judge anything of life or of G-d using only the empirical parameters between an individual’s birth and death – the only possible conclusion is that actual justice and a G-d of divine character is at best a deceptive and cruel fantasy.    If however, we look at life as one of many opportunities to gain understanding of an eternal conflict between “good” and “evil” we can realize that a “one size fits all” heaven or hell is neither necessary nor sufficient solution to good and evil as well as a loving companionate G-d verses a cruel enslaving Satan.   
 
Heaven and hell is not so much what we may believe or even want as it is the reality of what we desire most has in evolving our character.

As a scientist and engineer as well as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I must say I am quite surprised to see such a theory put forward.  My guess is that this concept was not generated on one's own as a result of learning anything.  For example, if I wanted to learn mathematics I would seek out institutions and individuals experienced and expert in mathematics.  The same for all science, accounting, law, medicine and even a physical trainer to compete in sports.  Pursue learning to swim on my own?  Not if I intended to accomplish anything beyond the ridiculous.
 
I suggest you invite the missionaries to meet with you and present their message.  They are teenagers for gosh shake not theologians with degrees from some university - hardly intimidating?  If you find their message convoluted or disjointed and out of touch with the reality of our day, age and culture - you will not have to meet again.  But before you judge them as inappropriate - I believe it would be the honest thing to meet with them first.

As a scientist and engineer as well as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I must say I am quite surprised to see such a theory put forward.  My guess is that this concept was not generated on one's own as a result of learning anything.  For example, if I wanted to learn mathematics I would seek out institutions and individuals experienced and expert in mathematics.  The same for all science, accounting, law, medicine and even a physical trainer to compete in sports.  Pursue learning to swim on my own?  Not if I intended to accomplish anything beyond the ridiculous.
 
I suggest you invite the missionaries to meet with you and present their message.  They are teenagers for gosh shake not theologians with degrees from some university - hardly intimidating?  If you find their message convoluted or disjointed and out of touch with the reality of our day, age and culture - you will not have to meet again.  But before you judge them as inappropriate - I believe it would be the honest thing to meet with them first.

As a scientist and engineer as well as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I must say I am quite surprised to see such a theory put forward.  My guess is that this concept was not generated on one's own as a result of learning anything.  For example, if I wanted to learn mathematics I would seek out institutions and individuals experienced and expert in mathematics.  The same for all science, accounting, law, medicine and even a physical trainer to compete in sports.  Pursue learning to swim on my own?  Not if I intended to accomplish anything beyond the ridiculous.
 
I suggest you invite the missionaries to meet with you and present their message.  They are teenagers for gosh shake not theologians with degrees from some university - hardly intimidating?  If you find their message convoluted or disjointed and out of touch with the reality of our day, age and culture - you will not have to meet again.  But before you judge them as inappropriate - I believe it would be the honest thing to meet with them first.

One thing I have learned about starting rumors - especially at church.  It is not near as fun if you know what is going to happen.   

There are many reasons to go on a mission as well as reasons not to go on a mission.  For anyone that will serve G-d, they will find a great deal of support to reason such service.  For those that desire to serve other cause - they will find one excuse as valid as another to justify their desire.  In the end we all live our lives (not just our formal mission) according to our agency.  Perhaps we choose even more our attitudes than our destiny or our responses to whatever we confront in life.
 
 
It appears to me that there is a great deal of joy with those that chart a choice of service of G-d and their fellow men.  It also appears to me that there is a great deal of depression and resentment with those that for whatever reason are convinced that they have lost direction of destiny or that their choices are in conflict with G-d and the exaltation (divine enlightenment) of their fellow men.  We will follow a trend in life such that a mission or some othere choice are only some of the steps in a greater journey that will define us.

I converted from Judaism. My house didn't become unkosher simply because there were guests there, no matter who they were. Same deal now. No coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco products in my house. If a guest can't survive without those products for a few hours or a few days, then they have a bigger problem than whatever my religion might happen to be.
From some of the things I've seen and heard, choices such as this when they are based on religion are considered somehow "wrong", but some of the same people who would not give respect to these choices would applaud someone who made similar choices bases on other reasons...such as politics or even the fad of the day.
Just give them directions to the nearest coffee shop.