Trees in the Garden

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm with you totally here. I don't subscribe to Justice's opinion of the Tree of Life though.

Like I said, I believe that both of those trees are special. They have substances within the fruit itself that has physical effects on the bodies of mankind.

Cleon Skousen in his book the First 2000 Years explained that it was important that Adam and Eve make the decision to partake of mortality without any of God's intervention. If God had no part in the change then neither Adam, Eve nor thier posterity could say. "You did this to us, it is unfair!" The fall was designed such that mankind entered into mortality expressly against the recommendations of God. God then had to place the flaming sword to protect mankind from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, otherwise man would have screwed up the fall.

I disagree with your statement that this made Adam and Eve passive participants. On the contrary, it made Adam and Eve the active participants and God a passive participant.

It was Adam's decision to enter into mortality. Not God's

Thanks, I agree. These are good points. "Passive" wasn't the right word, I think I was trying to say it opens up the possibility that it was unintentional. In other words if the power to change was in the fruit itself, Adam and Eve could have taken it out of spite or curiosity or simply because they were deceived. It doesn't give any additional support to the idea that they did it intentionally. I agree with it being Adam's decision.

[mikbone]

Thanks, I agree. These are good points. "Passive" wasn't the right word, I think I was trying to say it opens up the possibility that it was unintentional. In other words if the power to change was in the fruit itself, Adam and Eve could have taken it out of spite or curiosity or simply because they were deceived. It doesn't give any additional support to the idea that they did it intentionally. I agree with it being Adam's decision.

There is no evidence that the possibility of Adam or Eve taking the Fruit of the ToKoG&E was via spite, curiosity, simple deception, or unintentional. On the contrary... in the scriptures and the temple narrative there is ample evidence that Adam and Eve were given adequate informed consent. And that they had no intention of partaking of the fruit.

When Lucifer tempted Adam, Lucifer was thoroughly rebuffed. Eve only partook of the fruit when she recognized that she could not have children unless she partook. Im my opinion, Eve heroically partook of the fruit willing to suffer the consequences so that men could be. Adam partook of the Fruit because he loved Eve so dearly, he was willing to forfeit his life so that Eve would be comforted.

Adam and Eve were no doubt among the best and brightest individuals within our pre-moral existence.

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." Albert Einstein

[Moksha]

I got curious on this a couple of months back. The earliest reference I could find to pre-Fall Adam and Eve having spirit coursing through their veins instead of blood was Joseph Fielding Smith. In Doctrines of Salvation, he states essentially what is found in the Bible Dictionary using the verse in Leviticus as support, "the life of the animal is in its blood." In an earlier work (Man, his Origin and Destiny I think), he uses the same verse to show that Adam didn't have blood, and then in DofS it's expanded so that the blood is replaced with spirit.

Can anyone find anything earlier?

So Joseph Fielding Smith seems to be the originator of this thought. Readers might also remember that he was also the author reaffirming pure creationism without evolution.

For related information see: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/26761-body-flesh-bones-without-blood.html

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is no evidence that the possibility of Adam or Eve taking the Fruit of the ToKoG&E was via spite, curiosity, simple deception, or unintentional. On the contrary... in the scriptures and the temple narrative there is ample evidence that Adam and Eve were given adequate informed consent. And that they had no intention of partaking of the fruit.

When Lucifer tempted Adam, Lucifer was thoroughly rebuffed. Eve only partook of the fruit when she recognized that she could not have children unless she partook. Im my opinion, Eve heroically partook of the fruit willing to suffer the consequences so that men could be. Adam partook of the Fruit because he loved Eve so dearly, he was willing to forfeit his life so that Eve would be comforted.

Adam and Eve were no doubt among the best and brightest individuals within our pre-moral existence.

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." Albert Einstein

We are on the same page here. I agree with all of that.

[Seminarysnoozer]

worlds without number...

I think we are not the first world to be placed onto this planet...

new worlds are built on the top of older ones, see for example:

(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)

1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;

new world built on an older one - it will happen, it seems ok to say that is has happened.

are you familiar with the gap theory?

The word "was" in Genesis 1:2 is more accurately translated "became"....

see: Genesis 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

was:

haya: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

means become.

Gen 1:2 And the earth had become (not was) without form, and void...

I think Eden was on the Earth, just the celestial version of the Earth - Just as we are now surrounded by celestial beings which our eyes are unable to see..

Eden perhaps exists within this sphere

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his aeyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and bchariots of fire round about Elisha.

(Old Testament | Daniel 5:5)

5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote aover against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

the sphere that the hand came from, that the chariots were in...

- Eden is/was on the Earth, but on a different plane, on the other side of the veil... but still on the earth - just as Elisha's chariots were on the earth.

When Adam/Eve ate the fruit, they crossed over the veil, they came into an old world that had become void... Adam and Eve came from a sphere where there was no death, from a perfect celestial home where they walked with God...

This is probably veering into another thread topic

... I've heard this concept before but I don't understand what is left over after the Earth takes on it's paradisical glory. Just like D&C 130:9 says " 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s."

So, if this world becomes sanctified and immortal than there would be nothing left of the old world, it would not exist. Just like when we get our new, perfected immortal body the old one, the mortal one does not exist anymore, it goes back to dust.

If you are saying that our world was placed on an old one, how is it that the old one still existed? Why wouldn't it be turned back to the dust and basic materials that it came from or that it was formed into a paridisacal glory which would make it unavailable to put anything else on it. If an old world was transformed into a celestial sphere than it couldn't be made into a less than celestial sphere again. So the "old world" you are talking about is either 1) dust - which really wouldn't be called a "world" anymore, So God would be starting from scratch again. or 2) the old world was transformed into it's immortal celestial glory and then wouldn't be a candidate for placing mortals on it. So, if any old world existed, which I believe it did because God's work is without end, then it would not be in any usable form that one would call a "world." ... in my opinion. I think number 2 option above is the really the only possible outcome of God's creation. The only other way around that would be if this world really isn't transformed in the end, that everything is simply moved to a different sphere in which we would call that the celestial sphere. Then it really isn't transformed, it is all just moved to a different venue.

There is no doctrine of regression from a glorified celestial state that I know about.

[Seminarysnoozer]

the people are transformed, and isn't that the important part of it all?

To me and it sounds like to you too, yes that is the important part, but we weren't necessarily talking about the "important part." The scripture in D&C that I gave says the Earth will be "made" into a different state. Meaning it doesn't already exist. There isn't another layer, waiting for one to be moved to another state.

When Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, did he see them as they are or a transformed image of them so they could be in this world? Even if it is a finer material, flesh can't mix with flesh, otherwise why do we need the Holy Ghost? If God can move in and out of our world like the spirit can co-exist with flesh, in other words, one on a spirit level and the other on a physical level than I guess we would have to say that His body is not really flesh. If it is some kind of flesh that can exist in the same space as our flesh, than to me that really isn't "flesh" it is something else. I realize they can't exist in the same area because of it's glorified state that we are not. And if that is true then it is not here that God exists or where the Celestial Kingdom is at the same time a lesser world occupies the same location.

Can you point me to where I might read more about these "layers".

[mikbone]

worlds without number...

I think we are not the first world to be placed onto this planet...

new worlds are built on the top of older ones, see for example:

(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)

1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;.

I've heard of multiple theories / commentary about similar concepts.

Most of the time I see people attempt to explain our fossil record by stating that the dinosaurs, etc. lived on different planets that were destroyed and then chunks of these different planets were re-assembled to create our Earth.

I think that these ideas originate from Joseph Smith - Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum", Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841.

"Earth Formed from other Planets

This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live."

But I don't think that was what Joseph Smith was trying to describe. If you look at the statement in context of the lecture, he was discussing the eternal nature of the elements.

Astrophysics has come a long way since Joseph Smith's day and we now know that Joseph Smith was absolutely correct in his statement.

After the big bang the only elements in the universe were Hydrogen and Helium. Some of these gasses condensed such that they became stars. With nuclear fusion the simple elements were fused into heavier elements but the elements heavier than Iron can only be made from the effects of a supernova.

And because the Earth has many elements that are heavier than iron we know that the elements of Earth were once at least organized as a star that went supernova.

Thus the Earth was organized from other planets. But fossil records do not survive supernova explosions.

Edited September 23, 2010 by mikbone

[Moksha]

Thus the Earth was organized from other planets. But fossil records do not survive supernova explosions.

If not supernovas, then we can perhaps assume that Intergalactic Lord Xenu went on one very large rampage.

[mikbone]

I'm a believer in multiple dimentions :) you have to watch this:

YouTube - Carl Sagan 4th Dimension Explanation

I think we are living on flatland so to speak, that we are 3D shadows - that heaven lies about us, but that it lies within a higher dimension.

I like Sagan. And I'm more that willing to imagine that God exists in multiple dimensions. I don't think that God lives here on this Earth on a different astral plane though. The Universe is so freakin massive that it makes no sense to me that we would need to conserve all this space. I believe that God's domicile is somewhere on or near Kolob.

Seems wipe/reset is something that happens - I think Eden was part of a wipe/reset - that the Earth had become void, the life forms were not spiritually enlightened, and so God sent a bunch of perfect celestial beings (Adam, Eve, plants, and animals) down from a perfect celestial sphere to start a new era on the Earth...

I concur.

I think that there was some kind of mass extinction event that occurred prior to Eden.

Life on Earth was transplanted here from a previously celestialized planet. Essentially, the Lord created a great Ark that could transfer celestial life across the cosmos. Then the plants, animals, and even humans on the 'ark' descended to the Earth and then started to reproduce... After the Earth was repopulated the 'ark' then left with the original celestial organisms and then returned back to their heaven or continued on to repopulate other earths...

Pre-eden life forms were probably part of Jehovah's education.

Edited September 23, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

I like Sagan. And I'm more that willing to imagine that God exists in multiple dimensions. I don't think that God lives here on this Earth on a different astral plane though. The Universe is so freakin massive that it makes no sense to me that we would need to conserve all this space. I believe that God's domicile is somewhere on or near Kolob.

I concur.

I think that there was some kind of mass extinction event that occurred prior to Eden.

Life on Earth was transplanted here from a previously celestialized planet. Essentially, the Lord created a great Ark that could transfer celestial life across the cosmos. Then the plants, animals, and even humans on the 'ark' descended to the Earth and then started to reproduce... After the Earth was repopulated the 'ark' then left with the original celestial organisms and then returned back to their heaven or continued on to repopulate other earths...

Pre-eden life forms were probably part of Jehovah's education.

Why do you think it had to be "transplanted" and not simply copied? Do you think God is not capable of stringing together molecules to form the basic building blocks of life? I don't understand the need for a "transplanted" scenario.

[captmoroniRM]

With the Portuguese translation of the Bible, I can prove that it was a Coconut that Adam and Eve partook of to get kicked out...........

[mikbone]

Why do you think it had to be "transplanted" and not simply copied? Do you think God is not capable of stringing together molecules to form the basic building blocks of life? I don't understand the need for a "transplanted" scenario.

Quite a few reasons...

God could have teleported Nephi and his family to the promise land. But He didn't. God could have done the same with the Jaredites, but He didn't. Why didn't He? God uses the tools that He has to accomplish his goals. Take for example when Joseph Smith was given the Aaronic and then the Melchizedek priesthood. God himself could have conferred the priesthood upon Joseph Smith, but He didn't. Instead he caused John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John to conferr the priesthood... D&C 13, D&C 27:8.

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg? You argue that neither came first, that God simply created the first Chicken de novo. In my observations this is not how He works. I simply believe that the Chickens came first.

January 5, 1841, Joseph Smith as recorded in the McIntire Record

Next Subject was--Did the Lord God make the Earth out of Nothing; By D. Ells. say he God did not make the earth out of Nothing; for it is contrary to a Rashanall [rational] mind & Reason. that a something could be Brought from a Nothing; also it is contry to the principle & Means by witch God does work; for instance; when God formed man, he made him of something; the Dust of the Earth, & and he allways took a something to afect a something Else; oft he takes man to scorge his fellow man, or watter to Destroy man--or fire to Distroy Man or angels for istance the angel that went forth & Distroyed a hundred thousand one knigt

he also said as for his own knowledge the Earth was made out of sumthing for it was impossible for a sumthing to be made out of Nothing fire, air, & watter are Eternal Existant principles which are the Composition of which the Earth-has been Composed; also this Earth has been organized out of portions of other Globes that has ben Disorganized; in tistimoney that this Earth was Not the first of Gods work;

Edited October 9, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

Quite a few reasons...

God could have teleported Nephi and his family to the promise land. But He didn't. God could have done the same with the Jaredites, but He didn't. Why didn't He? God uses the tools that He has to accomplish his goals. Take for example when Joseph Smith was given the Aaronic and then the Melchizedek priesthood. God himself could have conferred the priesthood upon Joseph Smith, but He didn't. Instead he caused John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John to conferr the priesthood... D&C 13, D&C 27:8.

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg? You argue that neither came first, that God simply created the first Chicken de novo. In my observations this is not how He works. I simply believe that the Chickens came first.

January 5, 1841, Joseph Smith as recorded in the McIntire Record

Next Subject was--Did the Lord God make the Earth out of Nothing; By D. Ells. say he God did not make the earth out of Nothing; for it is contrary to a Rashanall [rational] mind & Reason. that a something could be Brought from a Nothing; also it is contry to the principle & Means by witch God does work; for instance; when God formed man, he made him of something; the Dust of the Earth, & and he allways took a something to afect a something Else; oft he takes man to scorge his fellow man, or watter to Destroy man--or fire to Distroy Man or angels for istance the angel that went forth & Distroyed a hundred thousand one knigt

he also said as for his own knowledge the Earth was made out of sumthing for it was impossible for a sumthing to be made out of Nothing fire, air, & watter are Eternal Existant principles which are the Composition of which the Earth-has been Composed; also this Earth has been organized out of portions of other Globes that has ben Disorganized; in tistimoney that this Earth was Not the first of Gods work;

You are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say God could make something out of nothing. I said that He didn't have to transplant life from somewhere else. The materials, the atoms, in their simplest forms have always existed and cannot be made or destroyed. I agree with that. But God could take carbon atoms and string them together with hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen, etc to make the simplest form of life without having to transplant it from somewhere else in the form of a seed or an already put together strand of DNA.

Even we have the technology to string together certain nucleic acids together and put them in a sack of lipid layers and form a yeast that had no progenitor, no previously living being of the same kind that that yeast would have as it's "mother or father". I don't think it is far off to say that God could make life de novo, not the materials to make life, but life itself, de novo.

And if that is the case, then it doesn't have to be left over from another world or have to be transplanted from another world. He could simply come with the knowledge of how it was done in previous worlds and do it the same way. He probably has the sequence of DNA needed to start those early forms of life memorized. Why would He have to have it pre-made like instant oatmeal in a package, just add water, kind of a thing? I don't understand where that notion comes from. I believe He can string together the simplest forms of matter in the right combination in the right environments to create living creatures where none had existed before. But, yes, the matter was there already. And, I would even say He could do that with a human body, likely not a spirit, but a physical body I think is within God's purview to make from matter alone. ... as He does with our future perfected body after we leave this one behind. If you think the "chicken has to come first", even for our future perfected body, then you must believe that when we receive that body, it is in the form of a baby. Or is it raised somehow to the adult form so that we can jump right into it as an adult when the time comes? I think you would agree, He has the ability to make an adult body without the "chicken".

[mikbone]

You are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say God could make something out of nothing. I said that He didn't have to transplant life from somewhere else. The materials, the atoms, in their simplest forms have always existed and cannot be made or destroyed. I agree with that. But God could take carbon atoms and string them together with hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen, etc to make the simplest form of life without having to transplant it from somewhere else in the form of a seed or an already put together strand of DNA.

I think that you are misinterpreting my response actually. I used the term De Novo not Ex Nihilo. I think you have confused the terms. I was also very careful in making the argument that God uses the tools that are already available instead of creating everything from scratch.

To me it seems illogical and cold for God to populate our world with a gene sequencer. No doubt He could do it, but why? When God restarted our Earth during Noah's Flood, He did not wipe everything off the Earth and start anew. He used a crop of species, prepared an ark for them and protected them through the storm of the flood, so that they could be transplanted to the newely cleansed Earth.

In many ways, I believe the Noah's Ark story symbolically represents the original Genesis of our Earth...

If you think the "chicken has to come first", even for our future perfected body, then you must believe that when we receive that body, it is in the form of a baby. Or is it raised somehow to the adult form so that we can jump right into it as an adult when the time comes? I think you would agree, He has the ability to make an adult body without the "chicken".

Nonsense. You know that our bodies will be raised just as they were when they die. A change will then come upon those bodies that makes them immortal, telestial, terestrial, or celestial as is rightly deserved. And I do not believe that God has ever created an adult body de novo. Adam was not a Golem!

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think that you are misinterpreting my response actually. I used the term De Novo not Ex Nihilo. I think you have confused the terms. I was also very careful in making the argument that God uses the tools that are already available instead of creating everything from scratch.

To me it seems illogical and cold for God to populate our world with a gene sequencer. No doubt He could do it, but why? When God restarted our Earth during Noah's Flood, He did not wipe everything off the Earth and start anew. He used a crop of species, prepared an ark for them and protected them through the storm of the flood, so that they could be transplanted to the newely cleansed Earth.

In many ways, I believe the Noah's Ark story symbolically represents the original Genesis of our Earth...

Nonsense. You know that our bodies will be raised just as they were when they die. A change will then come upon those bodies that makes them immortal, telestial, terestrial, or celestial as is rightly deserved. And I do not believe that God has ever created an adult body de novo. Adam was not a Golem!

You have some interesting views on these subjects, I appreciate your responses because it opens my mind to other possibilities and I appreciate it. I am sincerely trying to learn and not trying to argue with you at all (just so you know that).

I have always looked at the flood as more of God pruning the garden than making it. That is my simple response to that. There was nothing created from that event, only some things were taken away. I tend to think that all the genetic variable lifeforms that were far removed from the original creation were trimmed back because they became too carnal, not suitable for spiritual cohabitation. .. He had to give us at least a fighting chance to be able to listen to our spirits in this corrupted body. In other words, the body couldn't be too corrupted.

Second issue, the body being "raised" is an inclusive term that has to include creating a body de novo. (By the way, I am not used to those terms, ex nihilo - had to look it up). What about the guy who gets eaten by a hippo whose molecules become part of the hippo who will also have to be "raised", then the hippo gets eaten by the lion that will also have to be "raised" and then the lion dies in a field where a tree grows and some other person eats of the tree that now contains the molecules of the original man in the form of a fruit with which now that person dies. The molecules that make up the bodies of those that have passed are reused over and over again. They are not tagged and remain exclusive to the original owner. The form and arrangement might be recorded and then "raised" in that same order. But who will put those molecules back in that same order if you don't think it is God? Will my mother have to go through labor again under the same circumstances to reproduce my body as it was and then I will have to grow it up to the same age in which I died so it can be turned into a celestial, terrestial or telestial body? Of course not, the body has to be made de novo from Earths materials. Somebody has to make it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think life begets life, abiogenesis? it's easier for life to form with an instruction manual...

YouTube - Origin of Life - Panspermia (2 of 3)

seems to explain the Camb. explosion pretty well, don't you think? I'm a fan of Panspermia + HGT.

(horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering)

You are talking about methods after the system is going. Life begets life is what God created here. But the "transplanted" life is more of a discussion of how it got here in the first place. I think I was talking more along the lines of synthetic biology. All of the sequenced DNA to form all the life forms needed to get the ball rolling could be made in a laboratory type setting and then once life is going, yes life begets life and horizontal gene transfer take place to form all the variability that occurs afterward. Scientists have already sequenced new bacteria, Mycoplasma laboratorium, for example. Life could start that way, in other words, God doesn't necessarily have to bring over a zoo of animals and plants from another world to parent the original creation animals here. Nor does He have to leave some organic material laying around from an old world, that should have been turned into its celestial glory anyways. He could simply start with simple molecules and align the molecules in the correct order and sequence the DNA in the right order, as it has always been ordered on every other planet and start the ball rolling.

[mikbone]

You have some interesting views on these subjects, I appreciate your responses because it opens my mind to other possibilities and I appreciate it. I am sincerely trying to learn and not trying to argue with you at all (just so you know that).

Second issue, the body being "raised" is an inclusive term that has to include creating a body de novo. (By the way, I am not used to those terms, ex nihilo - had to look it up). What about the guy who gets eaten by a hippo whose molecules become part of the hippo who will also have to be "raised", then the hippo gets eaten by the lion that will also have to be "raised" and then the lion dies in a field where a tree grows and some other person eats of the tree that now contains the molecules of the original man in the form of a fruit with which now that person dies. The molecules that make up the bodies of those that have passed are reused over and over again. They are not tagged and remain exclusive to the original owner. The form and arrangement might be recorded and then "raised" in that same order. But who will put those molecules back in that same order if you don't think it is God? Will my mother have to go through labor again under the same circumstances to reproduce my body as it was and then I will have to grow it up to the same age in which I died so it can be turned into a celestial, terrestial or telestial body? Of course not, the body has to be made de novo from Earths materials. Somebody has to make it.

Our discussion is getting kinda confusing. But hey thats OK were dealing with difficult topics. And don't worry I don't offend easily. And I'm sorry if I sometimes come across contentious.

I totally agree with your point above. When a person is resurrected the spirit of that personage must clothe itself with organic and inorganic matter. Does the matter that composes the recurrected body have to originate from the matter that existed within the same mortal body prior to death? Is there a percentage of the original matter that must be recycled? Or will any matter from the Earth do??? If I was a betting man, I'd say that any matter from the Earth would do just fine. Or else what happens to people that are cremated with their ashes scattered into the wind???

But then again the resurrection is totally different then receiving a body for the first time. Just because a disembodied spirit can clothe itself during the resurrection, does not mean that an unembodied spirit can do the same thing...

April 7, 1844, Joseph Smith, excerpt from the King Follett Discourse as recorded in the Times & Seasons

"Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power; and I want you to know that God in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me; it is the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourner, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know, that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved, that they shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? to inherit the same glory, the same power and the same exaltation, until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day."

To reiterate:

1) I assume that during the resurrection a disembodied spirit can resurrect de novo.

2) I assume that when an unembodied spirit is first is joined with a body, that it must be with the assistance of genetic material from the parents and an incubation most generally done in utero.

Edited October 13, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

Our discussion is getting kinda confusing. But hey thats OK were dealing with difficult topics. And don't worry I don't offend easily. And I'm sorry if I sometimes come across contentious.

I totally agree with your point above. When a person is resurrected the spirit of that personage must clothe itself with organic and inorganic matter. Does the matter that composes the recurrected body have to originate from the matter that existed within the same mortal body prior to death? Is there a percentage of the original matter that must be recycled? Or will any matter from the Earth do??? If I was a betting man, I'd say that any matter from the Earth would do just fine. Or else what happens to people that are cremated with their ashes scattered into the wind???

But then again the resurrection is totally different then receiving a body for the first time. Just because a disembodied spirit can clothe itself during the resurrection, does not mean that an unembodied spirit can do the same thing...

April 7, 1844, Joseph Smith, excerpt from the King Follett Discourse as recorded in the Times & Seasons

"Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power; and I want you to know that God in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me; it is the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourner, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know, that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved, that they shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? to inherit the same glory, the same power and the same exaltation, until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day."

To reiterate:

1) I assume that during the resurrection a disembodied spirit can resurrect de novo.

2) I assume that when an unembodied spirit is first is joined with a body, that it must be with the assistance of genetic material from the parents and an incubation most generally done in utero.

Thanks,

What is an unembodied spirit? I've never heard that term before. Isn't that just a spirit? What is the difference between a "disembodied" spirit and an "unembodied" spirit?

I don't think you have addressed the issue of how the resurrected body is made. You are using a term "clothed" but ignoring the fact that the body somehow has to be remade or formed somehow. I am not asking how it is done, because I don't think any of us know ... unless you do that is fine. But I think you will agree that that body has to be made somehow without being "born" of parents. It sounds like you agree with me that most bodies from this world will be mostly destroyed and the actual material from those bodies will not necessarily be reserved for that person. So, can't that body be made from scratch, de novo. And if so, that was my original point that the starting bodies from this world do not have to be transplanted from another planet or be born of parents. Why does it "have to be" that Adam and Eve's physical bodies had parents if we believe a resurrected body is created from raw elements without parental birthing?

So long as we realize that Adam and Eve are spiritual children of God, what added value does it have to say that our corrupted temporary bodies of this world have Godly parentage? I don't think it adds anything. In fact I think it would be more reasonable to believe that Jesus is the only one who had Godly physical parentage and that is why He could do what He had to do.

[mikbone]

Thanks,

What is an unembodied spirit? I've never heard that term before. Isn't that just a spirit? What is the difference between a "disembodied" spirit and an "unembodied" spirit?

I don't think you have addressed the issue of how the resurrected body is made. You are using a term "clothed" but ignoring the fact that the body somehow has to be remade or formed somehow. I am not asking how it is done, because I don't think any of us know ... unless you do that is fine. But I think you will agree that that body has to be made somehow without being "born" of parents. It sounds like you agree with me that most bodies from this world will be mostly destroyed and the actual material from those bodies will not necessarily be reserved for that person. So, can't that body be made from scratch, de novo. And if so, that was my original point that the starting bodies from this world do not have to be transplanted from another planet or be born of parents. Why does it "have to be" that Adam and Eve's physical bodies had parents if we believe a resurrected body is created from raw elements without parental birthing?

Unembodied - Soul that is currently only a spirit, and has never ever had a physical body.

Disembodied - Soul that experienced mortal life (had a physical body) and then died and was seperated from the body and is currently existing as a spirit but is waiting for the resurrection.

I believe that a disembodied spirit will be taught during the ordinance of resurrection how to control physical elements and clothe themselves. But no one prior to the resurrection of Christ was able to resurrect. Christ was the Firstborn from the Dead. It is of special note that Jesus Christ knew how to self-resurrect without instruction.

Adam and Eve were unembodied, thus they needed assistance in receiving a body. There is a GREAT difference between getting a body the first time and resurrection.

Otherwise whats to keep Satan from getting a body? Try as he might he will never get a body.

So long as we realize that Adam and Eve are spiritual children of God, what added value does it have to say that our corrupted temporary bodies of this world have Godly parentage? I don't think it adds anything. In fact I think it would be more reasonable to believe that Jesus is the only one who had Godly physical parentage and that is why He could do what He had to do.

This is a good point that you make. And it is a common belief. But it is one that I do not agree with. It is a whole different topic though... I have previously stated on various other threads that I think that Christ was able to do what He did because of his knowledge, understanding, worthiness and previous experiences. I believe that He became the Only Begotten because of his prior experiences. The spiritual birth order is NOT what made Jehovah who he is...

Edited October 13, 2010 by mikbone

[Justice]

The spiritual birth order is NOT what made Jehovah who he is...

I so agree.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Unembodied - Soul that is currently only a spirit, and has never ever had a physical body.

Disembodied - Soul that experienced mortal life (had a physical body) and then died and was seperated from the body and is currently existing as a spirit but is waiting for the resurrection.

I believe that a disembodied spirit will be taught during the ordinance of resurrection how to control physical elements and clothe themselves. But no one prior to the resurrection of Christ was able to resurrect. Christ was the Firstborn from the Dead. It is of special note that Jesus Christ knew how to self-resurrect without instruction.

Adam and Eve were unembodied, thus they needed assistance in receiving a body. There is a GREAT difference between getting a body the first time and resurrection.

Otherwise whats to keep Satan from getting a body? Try as he might he will never get a body.

This is a good point that you make. And it is a common belief. But it is one that I do not agree with. It is a whole different topic though... I have previously stated on various other threads that I think that Christ was able to do what He did because of his knowledge, understanding, worthiness and previous experiences. I believe that He became the Only Begotten because of his prior experiences. The spiritual birth order is NOT what made Jehovah who he is...

Okay, but even then, it really doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion who makes the resurrected body, in the end someone will have to make an adult body that did not have parents. The "clothing" procedure of resurrection will require an adult body be made from raw elements, will it not?

[mikbone]

Okay, but even then, it really doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion who makes the resurrected body, in the end someone will have to make an adult body that did not have parents. The "clothing" procedure of resurrection will require an adult body be made from raw elements, will it not?

For the sake of this discussion (the creation of the bodies of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden) the word resurrection has no context whatsoever.

Adam and Eve were not resurrected beings in the Garden. You seem to want them to be. I accept that Adam and Eve were born to parents just like everyone else...

There never will be a situation where someone will have to make an adult body that did not have parents. All men whom are resurrected had parents.

I don't know the scientific specifics about how a disembodied spirit is able to reassemble a physical body 'clothing' their spirit and making an immortal personage (be it a glory of Celestial, Terestrial, Telestial or an immortal body of no glory). But it must not be too complex because everyone that has ever lived on Earth will be resurrected prior to the final judgement.

The following is the best and only description of resurrection that I have ever seen written.

http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Resurrection%20Experience%20of%20Zeke%20Johnson.pdf

Edited October 14, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

For the sake of this discussion (the creation of the bodies of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden) the word resurrection has no context whatsoever.

Adam and Eve were not resurrected beings in the Garden. You seem to want them to be. I accept that Adam and Eve were born to parents just like everyone else...

There never will be a situation where someone will have to make an adult body that did not have parents. All men whom are resurrected had parents.

I don't know the scientific specifics about how a disembodied spirit is able to reassemble a physical body 'clothing' their spirit and making an immortal personage (be it a glory of Celestial, Terestrial, Telestial or an immortal body of no glory). But it must not be too complex because everyone that has ever lived on Earth will be resurrected prior to the final judgement.

The following is the best and only description of resurrection that I have ever seen written.

http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Resurrection%20Experience%20of%20Zeke%20Johnson.pdf

I am not saying Adam and Eve were resurrected beings, not at all. I am simply using (and maybe this is too simple) the example used in Sunday School lessons of the hand in the glove idea. The glove being the body, the hand being like the spirit. Before coming to this earth we are just the "hand" and we are given a body (glove). Then at death the body separates from the spirit (like taking off the glove). The spirit is still alive of course, like a hand without a glove. But here is the thing, the original glove is destroyed, it turns to dust, back to raw elements, most of the time. We call the resurrection like putting on the glove again but never to be separated from the hand again. If the "glove" is destroyed after death, it has to be remade to be able to put it on again, doesn't it?

To me, that is similar to before we put it on in the first place. The hand before it enters the glove in the first place, at birth, are separate entities. The body or glove the first time around is made by parents when it is a corrupted body. After separation, at death, the original glove is destroyed and returns to dust, and as I mentioned earlier, the elements go back to the earth and are even sometimes used by other animals and even people. It is not the same exact set of elements that are returned to form the second glove (the resurrected body) as those molecules have likely been used by numerous people. So, it can't be the same exact material. If it is not the same exact material, the second glove (the resurrected body) before it is put back on the hand, the resurrected body has to be remade or reformed or resurrected.

You posted some fanciful description of that process but are not admitting to the fact that the resurrected body has to be made from raw elements, even if it did use parts of bones left over like the case you presented. Even then, the other parts of that body are not "born" to parents. The new glove somehow appears to be put back on again, and you are not wanting to admit that that body has to be made from scratch, from raw elements without having parents. That body (or glove) is not "born." Or is it? A copy of that body may have been born previously. But that "new glove" specifically was not "born" to parents. The example you posted even suggested the body "magically" reformed without being "born." So, I think you would agree that a body can be made without being born.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer

[mikbone]

I am not saying Adam and Eve were resurrected beings, not at all. I am simply using (and maybe this is too simple) the example used in Sunday School lessons of the hand in the glove idea. The glove being the body, the hand being like the spirit. Before coming to this earth we are just the "hand" and we are given a body (glove). Then at death the body separates from the spirit (like taking off the glove). The spirit is still alive of course, like a hand without a glove. But here is the thing, the original glove is destroyed, it turns to dust, back to raw elements, most of the time. We call the resurrection like putting on the glove again but never to be separated from the hand again. If the "glove" is destroyed after death, it has to be remade to be able to put it on again, doesn't it? To me, that is similar to before we put it on in the first place.

Sounds like your asking me to speculate how the resurrection occurs. I don't know but I'm always willing to throw around and idea or two.

I agree when we are born, receiving a body is a passive experience. The mother partakes of food (dust of the earth) and her body then breaks down the food into its basic constituents, amino acids, fatty acids, protients, minerals, etc.. The embryo implants onto the mothers uterus and the placenta and umbilical cord are eventually made. The fetus then has access to the mother's blood supply via the semi permeable membrane of the placenta. The mother's blood does not mix with the fetal blood, but the placenta allows transfer of nutrition and waste products between the mother and fetus. The fetus then uses the building blocks to grow during the gestation. At some point during the gestation the spirit then enters into the growing fetus to become a living mortal soul.

The resurrection on the other hand is a vastly different process.

We know that Christ's body lay within the tomb for 3 days prior to the resurrection. I would assume that Christ's body began to decay during those 3 days, then when He was resurrected, He somehow changed the matter in the body such that it became whole, clean, and immortal. This is an awesome transformation. Every atom, within his body had to change. The immortal body does not have blood within its veins. And the body is impervious to damage, or illness. I assume that the body also has many other wonderful properties.

So, did Jesus have to use his decaying body and change that exact matter into the immortal body? Probably not. Does it make it easier to resurrect if you have the original corpse to work with? Probably. But then again I would venture to bet that If Christ's remains had been converted to pure energy that He could have still resurrected.

We know from E=mc^2 that energy and matter are related. I dont have a background in physics... but I assume that God can take energy and convert that directly to matter. He no doubt can also convert one element to another element - nuclear reaction. He can obviously use basic elements to create molecules and more complex material, cells, organs, etc...

I think that when everyone else that has ever lived on Earth resurrects that we will need much assistance to resurrect and clothe our spirits with matter. But I think that Christ was able to resurrect without assistance (that He essentially already knew how to convert matter into energy and vice versa and how to create an immortal organism from the elements). In my opinion His knowledge is immensely advanced compared to our ignorance... But we still have the potential to learn and gain the knowledge that He possesses. :)

I would even say that if you could remove Christ from his current perfected and resurrected body. And then send his spirit into the vacuum of space. That He could re-materialize his perfected body by creating energy, converting that energy into matter and then organizing that matter into a body.

If I were a betting man, I would put down some good money that the Holy Ghost could do the same right now if he chose to.

How's that for some speculation???

Edited October 14, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sounds like your asking me to speculate how the resurrection occurs. I don't know but I'm always willing to throw around and idea or two.

I agree when we are born, receiving a body is a passive experience. The mother partakes of food (dust of the earth) and her body then breaks down the food into its basic constituents, amino acids, fatty acids, protients, minerals, etc.. The embryo implants onto the mothers uterus and the placenta and umbilical cord are eventually made. The fetus then has access to the mother's blood supply via the semi permeable membrane of the placenta. The mother's blood does not mix with the fetal blood, but the placenta allows transfer of nutrition and waste products between the mother and fetus. The fetus then uses the building blocks to grow during the gestation. At some point during the gestation the spirit then enters into the growing fetus to become a living mortal soul.

The resurrection on the other hand is a vastly different process.

We know that Christ's body lay within the tomb for 3 days prior to the resurrection. I would assume that Christ's body began to decay during those 3 days, then when He was resurrected, He somehow changed the matter in the body such that it became whole, clean, and immortal. This is an awesome transformation. Every atom, within his body had to change. The immortal body does not have blood within its veins. And the body is impervious to damage, or illness. I assume that the body also has many other wonderful properties.

So, did Jesus have to use his decaying body and change that exact matter into the immortal body? Probably not. Does it make it easier to resurrect if you have the original corpse to work with? Probably. But then again I would venture to bet that If Christ's remains had been converted to pure energy that He could have still resurrected.

We know from E=mc^2 that energy and matter are related. I dont have a background in physics... but I assume that God can take energy and convert that directly to matter. He no doubt can also convert one element to another element - nuclear reaction. He can obviously use basic elements to create molecules and more complex material, cells, organs, etc...

I think that when everyone else that has ever lived on Earth resurrects that we will need much assistance to resurrect and clothe our spirits with matter. But I think that Christ was able to resurrect without assistance (that He essentially already knew how to convert matter into energy and vice versa and how to create an immortal organism from the elements). In my opinion His knowledge is immensely advanced compared to our ignorance... But we still have the potential to learn and gain the knowledge that He possesses. :)

I would even say that if you could remove Christ from his current perfected and resurrected body. And then send his spirit into the vacuum of space. That He could re-materialize his perfected body by creating energy, converting that energy into matter and then organizing that matter into a body.

If I were a betting man, I would put down some good money that the Holy Ghost could do the same right now if he chose to.

How's that for some speculation???

That is wonderful speculation.

The point of this line of discussion, at least from my end, was to say that it is within God's power to make Adam and Eve's bodies in the garden of Eden without having to transplant anything from another world or an old world, by just using the materials that are here on this planet. I have never asked you to speculate how it is done. I have only suggested you consider the fact that it can be done. If you think it can then I don't see any reason to say that it could not be done for Adam and Eve's immortal bodies in the Garden of Eden.

You say that resurrection is vastly different than the Adam and Eve's creation, of course I agree with that but I would say that the creation of an immortal body (Adam and Eve's body in the garden of Eden) is more like the creation of our resurrected body than it could be compared to the birth of a corrupted fallen body. I think comparing the creation of an immortal body to that of this dying mortal body would be more vastly different than comparing to another immortal body's creation.

The reason to make this statement is because it seems that there is much effort to figure out how God could start physical life from just raw elements without having to bring it from somewhere else. I don't think that is necessary. Spirits to put into the physical life yes .... maybe. But physical life does not have to be "born" from parents, similar to the first Mycobacterium Laboratorium cell created in a lab which did not come from parents of it's kind. It was not "birthed" so therefore does not fall into the whole discussion of one species begets another, it was not begotten, it was created. Creation takes away the need for being begotten.

The question that you are dancing around but not answering straight away is; Is the resurrected body of the man who died 3000 years ago and all of the molecules that once existed as part of his mortal body scattered and reused by other living organisms, made or birthed? I think you are hinting that you think it is made ... regardless of how, energy etc., the point is that it can be done and without parentage.