Evolution, Artificial Intelligence and “Oneness with G-d”

[Traveler]

For many Christians and some LDS as well, evolution is viewed as a heresy of modern science. If you personally fall into this category – you may want to skip this post. For others, you may find the concept presented in this post quite interesting.

For some time scientist have been studying two phenomenons – the second I find rather interesting and have utilized it in my work. The first is evolution – in particular the evolution of intelligence species. Being able to adapt in a beneficial manner gives an organism definite advantages in competing for resources.

The second is artificial intelligence. This is a most interesting field. Sometimes a very simple “learning” algorithm will produce astonishingly complex and fascinating results. Many years ago myself and another engineer developed a very simple algorithm for automated vehicles to find the work most needed to be done and then to do it in the most efficient way possible in a large scale manufacturing facility. Most of the concept was very simple and required hardly any code. Part of the test required by the customer was to compete with human guided transport systems that could move over twice as fast. To make a long story short – our AGV (automate guided vehicles) were able to move the same number of load as faster human operated vehicles in ¼ the time. What was so interesting is that the system would make what looked like stupid inefficient moves that were most difficult to explain.

At the time we used a principle that has become the latest rage in artificial intelligence – it is called the “Hive” intelligence. The best way to explain this concept is an ant or bee colony. Each individual of the colony acts as an automatous entity and passes on bits of “learning” to a collective that considers the efficiency of new data. For our system the efficiency standard was time. The amount of time waiting to get a job started and time to do the work, which in our case the work was mostly moving from one point to another. The key was being able to adapt to changes in work or flow of work in the factory.

The brilliant conclusion being reached by current research is that a team working together can work faster and more efficiently that any individual working by themselves. Does this really surprise anybody? But social media and the internet, coupled with smart phones, able to take images and pass on information quickly is starting to change a number of social constructs and there is an indication that we are creating (evolving) a very new and exciting way of gathering, analyzing and passing on information. So much so that some scientist involved in research are beginning to think we are going to evolve new ways of thinking and solving problems as a species. Think on that for a minute.

We have long known that in order to evolve higher and more intelligent species or life forms that an individual life form must establish symbiotic relationships with other organisms. As an individual you have established so many symbiotic relationships that most of the living stuff in you that you carry around – really is not you. You are so dependent that you cannot survive as a human being without your symbiotic relationships. They are very important. In essence all the organisms in you are acting as one.

Now for my conclusion to this “new” science being discovered or utilized. LDS have as a doctrine concerning the nature of G-d that – the Work and the Glory (intelligence) of G-d is the immortality and eternal life of man. Is there logic in G-d establishing a kind of symbiotic relationship (oneness) with man? If there is any indication in the patterns (fractals) of living things that are intelligent – the answer is yes. And there is a benefit to G-d as there is to any living thing; to cooperate with other living things. Interesting that G-d calls himself the living G-d. This principle plays directly into the LDS concept of eternal progression. And until now I had not really captured the logic of it all.

The Traveler

[Vort]

The human superorganism has existed for at least 12,000 years and probably much longer. It is called "the community", and its fundamental unit is called "the family". It's nice to see that science is finally beginning to get some glimmer of what religion has been teaching us for thousands of years.

[Anddenex]

Thanks for sharing.

[BadWolf]

LOL... Fun fun fun.

The part I always get hung up on is new ways of thinking. Not just new thoughts, but WAYS of thought. Always makes me pull a Pooh Bear "Think Think Think" before I realize that if I can think it, then its not new. Darn!

Then I invariably try again.

It's a repeatable experiment.

Result: I am not an evolved being.

By definition.

Drats!

Then again, keeps persecution out of my daily list of things to deal with.

Evolution has never bothered me, though.

Science answers how

Religion answers why

2 totally discrete / non-competing questions

[SanctitasDeo]

That is a very interesting thought. I'll have to consider it. Thank you for sharing.

[Guest SquidMom]

:pI don't know anything about AI, really, not a scientist. Sorry. But I've always thought that the arugument of evoltion vs. God was silly. Evolution does not disprove God and the Creation, (in my own opinion, feel free to call BS.) There was no time in The Beginning. Who's to say that the 7 days in Genesis was not actually billions of years? God's sense of time is not the same as ours.... As far as species changing and adapting over millenia, umm, perhaps God's way of letting them taking of themselves? I mean, how tedious to have to replace an entire species every time the climate changed. I've always felt like it was kinda on the same premise of reproduction.... God gave us (meaning every living thing,) the ability to perpetuate ourselves. Why not also the ability to adapt to a changing environment? (No, I do not believe we came from monkeys.) HOWEVER, the human form has changed over time. I feel like God planned it that way, not that he doesn't exist because of it.

Arguments? Agreements? Feel free to pick this to pieces.....

[Dravin]

Actually I suspect Traveler would prefer if that particular debate (Religion versus Evolution) took place in a different thread. It's one of those topics that once started tends to lead to pages of relatively heated (if not simply heated) back and forth.

[Guest SquidMom]

Actually I suspect Traveler would prefer if that particular debate (Religion versus Evolution) took place in a different thread. It's one of those topics that once started tends to lead to pages of relatively heated (if not simply heated) back and forth.

Your right, of course. Sorry.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For many Christians and some LDS as well, evolution is viewed as a heresy of modern science. If you personally fall into this category – you may want to skip this post. For others, you may find the concept presented in this post quite interesting.

For some time scientist have been studying two phenomenons – the second I find rather interesting and have utilized it in my work. The first is evolution – in particular the evolution of intelligence species. Being able to adapt in a beneficial manner gives an organism definite advantages in competing for resources.

The second is artificial intelligence. This is a most interesting field. Sometimes a very simple “learning” algorithm will produce astonishingly complex and fascinating results. Many years ago myself and another engineer developed a very simple algorithm for automated vehicles to find the work most needed to be done and then to do it in the most efficient way possible in a large scale manufacturing facility. Most of the concept was very simple and required hardly any code. Part of the test required by the customer was to compete with human guided transport systems that could move over twice as fast. To make a long story short – our AGV (automate guided vehicles) were able to move the same number of load as faster human operated vehicles in ¼ the time. What was so interesting is that the system would make what looked like stupid inefficient moves that were most difficult to explain.

At the time we used a principle that has become the latest rage in artificial intelligence – it is called the “Hive” intelligence. The best way to explain this concept is an ant or bee colony. Each individual of the colony acts as an automatous entity and passes on bits of “learning” to a collective that considers the efficiency of new data. For our system the efficiency standard was time. The amount of time waiting to get a job started and time to do the work, which in our case the work was mostly moving from one point to another. The key was being able to adapt to changes in work or flow of work in the factory.

The brilliant conclusion being reached by current research is that a team working together can work faster and more efficiently that any individual working by themselves. Does this really surprise anybody? But social media and the internet, coupled with smart phones, able to take images and pass on information quickly is starting to change a number of social constructs and there is an indication that we are creating (evolving) a very new and exciting way of gathering, analyzing and passing on information. So much so that some scientist involved in research are beginning to think we are going to evolve new ways of thinking and solving problems as a species. Think on that for a minute.

We have long known that in order to evolve higher and more intelligent species or life forms that an individual life form must establish symbiotic relationships with other organisms. As an individual you have established so many symbiotic relationships that most of the living stuff in you that you carry around – really is not you. You are so dependent that you cannot survive as a human being without your symbiotic relationships. They are very important. In essence all the organisms in you are acting as one.

Now for my conclusion to this “new” science being discovered or utilized. LDS have as a doctrine concerning the nature of G-d that – the Work and the Glory (intelligence) of G-d is the immortality and eternal life of man. Is there logic in G-d establishing a kind of symbiotic relationship (oneness) with man? If there is any indication in the patterns (fractals) of living things that are intelligent – the answer is yes. And there is a benefit to G-d as there is to any living thing; to cooperate with other living things. Interesting that G-d calls himself the living G-d. This principle plays directly into the LDS concept of eternal progression. And until now I had not really captured the logic of it all.

The Traveler

Yes, and the other equally important factor if not more important is the fact that our species can pass on information that was learned previously so nobody has to re-invent the wheel again. I think that fact applied to the eternal scheme is something often overlooked as we look at "inheritance" of glory. Most people just think of "inheritance" related to wealth or physical possession but with God and His glory it relates to intelligence. To pass on everything that previous generations have learned in the form of "inheritance" would advance eternal progression faster than just working together, even though I believe in what you are saying about working together. That is what makes a Celestial being eternal, if they can be privy to all the previous experience and knowledge as if they had done it themselves. In other words, the passing of the information perfectly from previous learning.

One of the limiting factors of our human development is the quality of information passed from one generation to the next. In our history, when that was not passed on very well, progression slowed down. And now that we can more easily pass on information and retain information developed by trial and error without having the next generation go through that same trial and error process, they can move onto the next thing.

The treasures of Heaven, our Inheritance of knowledge is the thing we are after ... so we don't have to figure it all out in this slow, tedious human way. Our real species, the family of God, is way more advanced than the human-mortal species could ever be and that is our heritage, not this slow fallen way. I don't place my heart's desire in the fallen ways of mortal life but in the looking forward to the Celestial ways because our desire should be with an eye single to God's glory, not the glory of man. That doesn't mean we can't be good stewards while here but to do it realizing that we are going to eventually do away with our mortal ways in place of something leaps and bounds more advanced than what we will ever achieve here. In other words, we are not asked to recreate God's wheel. He will give it to us via being worthy of such an inheritance.

[classylady]

At the time we used a principle that has become the latest rage in artificial intelligence – it is called the “Hive” intelligence. The best way to explain this concept is an ant or bee colony. Each individual of the colony acts as an automatous entity and passes on bits of “learning” to a collective that considers the efficiency of new data. For our system the efficiency standard was time. The amount of time waiting to get a job started and time to do the work, which in our case the work was mostly moving from one point to another. The key was being able to adapt to changes in work or flow of work in the factory.

We have long known that in order to evolve higher and more intelligent species or life forms that an individual life form must establish symbiotic relationships with other organisms. As an individual you have established so many symbiotic relationships that most of the living stuff in you that you carry around – really is not you. You are so dependent that you cannot survive as a human being without your symbiotic relationships. They are very important. In essence all the organisms in you are acting as one.

The Traveler

My first thought that came to mind when reading this was of Seven of Nine in Star Trek Voyager. She belonged to the Borg collective. Wow. I can't believe I still remember this. Her character obviously made a big impression on me. lol

[Traveler]

I had hoped to spark some discussion about the importance of the individual verses the community (family). How important is an individual? How important it is to participate in a group mentality and when does the mob mentality take over? And how important is it to lose one's self? When do we put the "greater good" over individual need? Are heroes really those that put other and the lives of others over individual survival?

I also wonder - has anyone ever really experienced a "oneness" with something outside of self?

It is not that I want to start controversy but is it really possible to to be a Celestial being and keep individuality?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

I had hoped to spark some discussion about the importance of the individual verses the community (family). How important is an individual? How important it is to participate in a group mentality and when does the mob mentality take over? And how important is it to lose one's self? When do we put the "greater good" over individual need? Are heroes really those that put other and the lives of others over individual survival?

I also wonder - has anyone ever really experienced a "oneness" with something outside of self?

It is not that I want to start controversy but is it really possible to to be a Celestial being and keep individuality?

The Traveler

Starting with the last question first, this would apply a whole new definition to the oneness of God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Ghost, if being a Celestial being meant no individuality.

I personally would think yes, it is possible to keep ones individuality even if we are one.

I think this is similar to population in connection with individuals. Without an individual a city will have no population. Without individuals the family can no longer be a family. In order for a family to exist, individuals must be present.

Yet, this is a physical presence and I think you are referencing more to a mental oneness. A mob mentality is the result of frenzied minds, verse sober minds. Typically in a mob mentality, there isn't oneness, but a leader which excites the mob, and then passion takes over. When a mob mentality is finished it leaves some individuals saying, "I would have never done what I did, but it was the moment, I couldn't control myself."

I would think the oneness, in light of Zion (the pure in heart), this will lead to an individual strength toward the same goal. Sort of like how God has asked us to have an "eye single to his glory."

I think in order to truly be one individuality must be intact, or as another commenter suggested, we become like the Borg, without a moral agency to act for ourselves, but are like drones in a beehive.

Are heroes really those that put other and the lives of others over individual survival?

Very intriguing question, my first thoughts which enter into my minds eye, is the 5 wise and 5 unwise virgins. Those who were prepared had not enough to give to the others. Yet, I think in a oneness of heart and mind, the people will care more about others, but will not be considered heroes, but simple moral people who care.

I think, the more we glorify God the less we think about becoming a hero, or who is and who isn't.

These are some of my first thoughts.

[Traveler]

Some of my concerns are kindled here but I am not sure that the concept of the hive mind is understood very well. I have long been concerned with popular notions. I do respect the one willing to stand against the storm of popular notions - but when is that stand counter productive?

I also believe, especially in families, that it is better to be together than it is to be right. For example my wife was raised in an LDS family, she is very dedicated to LDS values and raising our children and influencing our grandchildren with strong values. Her firm dedication to belief and my strong dedication to the priesthood drew us together. Yet one of our longest and most bitter arguments was over details of how we would together keep the Sabbath day holy in our family.

How do we have individual opinions and values yet still become one without any contention or one feeling pushed from their strong convictions? Perhaps this is something that only my wife and I have experienced.

Does compromise mean we must compromise our individual values?

There are times I very much feel that my wife and I are one - what is most interesting to me is that such feeling almost correspond to difficulties and hardships. And the times of less oneness almost always seem to correspond to times of little challenge.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

I do respect the one willing to stand against the storm of popular notions - but when is that stand counter productive?

In my minds eye, the willingness to stand against the storm of popular notions is only counter productive if the popular notion is factually true, undoubtedly true.

If the storm of popular notions is undoubtedly false, or agenda driven (i.e. Global Warming), then it is productive to provide opposition.

In this question I like the idea presented in scripture of "kicking against the pricks" and the metaphor shared in scripture regarding the man who dreamed, he ate until full, but when he woke up he was still empty. The metaphor continues with him drinking, his thirst quenched, but when he awakes, he is still athirst.

When people go against truth, whether it be popular notion or not, it will always be counter productive.

I also believe, especially in families, that it is better to be together than it is to be right.

I am more inclined to believe in some situations it is better to be right, while still making sure you are together. For example, a husband who has forsaken the church. He is also teaching the children to forsake the church. Is it better for the wife to allow such, and stay together, or is it better that she separates herself and her children from a potential of loosing all her children?

With regard to personal interpretation, and personal values, I would agree whole heartily, it is better to stay together, than to be right, because the basis is personal interpretation.

How do we have individual opinions and values yet still become one without any contention or one feeling pushed from their strong convictions? Perhaps this is something that only my wife and I have experienced.

Does compromise mean we must compromise our individual values?

There are times I very much feel that my wife and I are one - what is most interesting to me is that such feeling almost correspond to difficulties and hardships. And the times of less oneness almost always seem to correspond to times of little challenge.

The Traveler

I think at times it is better to compromise personal values which are based upon personal interpretation, not necessarily grounded in truth.

I often wonder if my wife's and mine arguments are a direct result of personal interpretations clashing, both of us feeling we are right, when in reality if we actually sought oneness (letting go of personal pride and personal knowledge) that we would eventually come to the same conclusion.

The more we ***** our own individual truths (not necessarily eternal truths) the closer we become to actually being one. The difficulty I find in our marriage, is that we are both smart and both studied.

However, as a result, we have often times come to better conclusions then we would have by ourselves.

[Traveler]

Some thoughts:

...

I am more inclined to believe in some situations it is better to be right, while still making sure you are together. For example, a husband who has forsaken the church. He is also teaching the children to forsake the church. Is it better for the wife to allow such, and stay together, or is it better that she separates herself and her children from a potential of loosing all her children?

In general I have found that when an individual draws a line in the sand that they will not cross - that the other spouse takes personal offense and that love and compassion is usually not communicated very well (this plays with children as well). But if the person offended honestly shows their emotions and broken heart but continues in their love and kindness rather than a revenge - that they have been far more successful in bringing about a change in the relationship. I have never won an argument with my wife with my superior logic and she has never lost an argument with me with her sincere tears.

With regard to personal interpretation, and personal values, I would agree whole heartily, it is better to stay together, than to be right, because the basis is personal interpretation.

I think at times it is better to compromise personal values which are based upon personal interpretation, not necessarily grounded in truth.

I often wonder if my wife's and mine arguments are a direct result of personal interpretations clashing, both of us feeling we are right, when in reality if we actually sought oneness (letting go of personal pride and personal knowledge) that we would eventually come to the same conclusion.

The more we ***** our own individual truths (not necessarily eternal truths) the closer we become to actually being one. The difficulty I find in our marriage, is that we are both smart and both studied.

However, as a result, we have often times come to better conclusions then we would have by ourselves.

Having served in the military I have never come across a case where an individual realizing the benefit in battle to act outside of a unified effort gives their cause the advantage. In fact often the effort in combat is to break the enemies efforts to act in a unified manner.

There is very old wisdom in the adage of "divide and conquer". I do not care how strong the defense - how prepared - how able to execute or how powerful --- if the greatest of talents become divided against themselves at the critical moment - they will fall and be conquered even by their weakest of enemies.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is not that I want to start controversy but is it really possible to to be a Celestial being and keep individuality?

The Traveler

I have brought this up in many threads, so I am glad you brought this up. I have asked what it means to be "one". I have found in asking this question that not many people think about this and that they tend to hold onto their individuality as if it is a tender gift. I think the thing that is most often forgotten in those thoughts is that who we are right now is just a shell of who we really are and on top of that these are just temporary stewardship given for a short probationary time never intended to be permanent characteristics of our self any more than a person who has Down's syndrome has been given permanent characteristics.

I think anything that promotes loving carnal things more than spiritual things is a problem. Carnal things includes our own carnal personalities. Which is to say all the things that come from our mortal body. This is why you and I even have gone back and forth about what is spirit you versus carnal you. The danger always is to consider our current personality to be spiritual when it may just be a carnal temporary stewardship, and therefore not give thanks for the gift but act as if it is ours. Such as when a person thinks that personal academic achievement was reached because of their own intelligence. What a huge trap that is!

The bigger issue, I think, is all that we take to be "individuality" is difficult to separate with carnality. I realize we had individual gifts and talents before coming here but it is incredibly difficult to tell if any one gift or talent is of spiritual nature versus temporary carnal, mortal stewardship.

I have also brought up threads about receiving "all" when the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is reached. Even then, it is hard for people to begin to accept what that would do to individuality if "all" was had by everyone around you. Because "all" equals "all". There is no part or division between all. So, if someone is a super talented singer then that would be part of the all. Or if someone is great at physics, that would also be part of the all, etc.

.... glad I am not the only one thinking about these things.

[Anddenex]

In general I have found that when an individual draws a line in the sand that they will not cross - that the other spouse takes personal offense and that love and compassion is usually not communicated very well (this plays with children as well). But if the person offended honestly shows their emotions and broken heart but continues in their love and kindness rather than a revenge - that they have been far more successful in bringing about a change in the relationship. I have never won an argument with my wife with my superior logic and she has never lost an argument with me with her sincere tears.

I would agree. I think this is part of the problem in relationships. We have drawn many lines we won't cross which are based upon a personal interpretation of what one considers truth, verses what actually is.

Having served in the military I have never come across a case where an individual realizing the benefit in battle to act outside of a unified effort gives their cause the advantage. In fact often the effort in combat is to break the enemies efforts to act in a unified manner.

I home taught a young man who served in Iraq. The unified efforts of his group of men were actually getting them all killed. It wasn't until he acted out, that he actually ended up saving 5 other soldiers. If he didn't act out, I may never have been his home teacher and he would have been one of the casualties. He received rewards for his act of bravery which saved 5 other soldiers lives.

In perfection, like the Oneness of our Godhead, I don't think acting out individually will be necessary or profitable. Yet, I don't think their oneness denies the individuality between God and his Son.

Yet, this does provide food for thought. This also gives rise to food for thought when I think about Christ's words when asked if they could see the Father, and he replied paraphrased, "Having seen me, you have seen him." Very interesting, and though provoking.

There is very old wisdom in the adage of "divide and conquer". I do not care how strong the defense - how prepared - how able to execute or how powerful --- if the greatest of talents become divided against themselves at the critical moment - they will fall and be conquered even by their weakest of enemies.

The Traveler

This is a true statement. There is a video on youtube with a Chinese (I think Chinese) military is performing a really neat walk formation. It works because these young men are honoring the goal of the whole. Within the frame of reference we see movements of motion that are in unison. Yet within the frame we also see individuals who have chosen to accept the object of the whole. If one acts our of line, then it messes up the whole production for that walking formation.

I, guess, for me I can't see the reality of loosing individuality because we are one. I don't think my wife and I will loose any individuality when we are officially one. The idea of male and female being important to our eternal purpose and identity already, at least to me, says we are still individuals.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[Windseeker]

I'm enjoying this discussion and don't have much to add other than this conversation was brought to mind when I heard a quote by Elder Nelson where he said that Salvation is an individual matter and that Exaltation is a family matter.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would agree. I think this is part of the problem in relationships. We have drawn many lines we won't cross which are based upon a personal interpretation of what one considers truth, verses what actually is.

I home taught a young man who served in Iraq. The unified efforts of his group of men were actually getting them all killed. It wasn't until he acted out, that he actually ended up saving 5 other soldiers. If he didn't act out, I may never have been his home teacher and he would have been one of the casualties. He received rewards for his act of bravery which saved 5 other soldiers lives.

In perfection, like the Oneness of our Godhead, I don't think acting out individually will be necessary or profitable. Yet, I don't think their oneness denies the individuality between God and his Son.

Yet, this does provide food for thought. This also gives rise to food for thought when I think about Christ's words when asked if they could see the Father, and he replied paraphrased, "Having seen me, you have seen him." Very interesting, and though provoking.

This is a true statement. There is a video on youtube with a Chinese (I think Chinese) military is performing a really neat walk formation. It works because these young men are honoring the goal of the whole. Within the frame of reference we see movements of motion that are in unison. Yet within the frame we also see individuals who have chosen to accept the object of the whole. If one acts our of line, then it messes up the whole production for that walking formation.

I, guess, for me I can't see the reality of loosing individuality because we are one. I don't think my wife and I will loose any individuality when we are officially one. The idea of male and female being important to our eternal purpose and identity already, at least to me, says we are still individuals.

I am curious what is individuality to you?

Individuality usually implies something more than just independent action. So, we are not talking about everyone doing the same thing at the same time. We are talking about traits and personalities being the same even though the individuals are doing different things.

Would Christ do exactly what God would do in any given situation? Are we okay with that idea? or is that bizarre that they would act the same way? Would we be okay if Christ looks exactly like God? Or would that be bizarre to us?

If I am fortunate to make it into the Celestial Kingdom and you and your wife are there too, would it bug you if she and I had the same traits, same personality, skills and even appearance? Why would that bug you if it does bug you? Why is having something that nobody else has important? To me that is the opposite direction of what the Celestial Kingdom stands for, it is not a place for individual stand-outs. There is a place for that, where one star shines differently than another, and I don't see the value of wanting that.

[Guest]

The individual is important because it is at this level that free will exists.

The Celestial State is when you have free-willed individuals chosing to be one with God.

So, technically, it is not a hive trait. A hive trait is when you have an individual with free will and the rest have none - or gave up their will to the hive. One brain = one purpose.

The Celestial trait is every single individual with free will chosing the exact same things so they end up working like a hive. Many brains = one purpose.

As far as the husband and wife are concerned - you choosing to give up your choice to be one with your wife is not the Celestial State of your marriage. So you still have work to do. The ideal married state is when both you and your wife desire the same things. This is what my husband and I - and including our children - strive for.

Just this weekend, for example, our 10-year-old car finally croaked. So we walked into the car lot to find another car. My husband wanted one car, I wanted another. The dealership gave us the keys to the one my husband liked to try out for the weekend. At the end of the weekend, he wanted to buy it so bad. I hated it. So with every intention of buying the car, he walked into the dealership today. The salesman knew I hated the car - we've known each other a long time. So, before my husband signed the dotted line, he showed my husband another car that the salesman knew I would like. My husband test drove the car just so he can tell me he gave consideration to my desires but he didn't expect much. The minute they got out of the parking lot, my husband fell head-over-heels-in-love with the car. He went home with the car minus our money. I got home expecting to see the other car in the driveway, but was surprised to see a car I wanted! I sat in it, fell in love with it and now my husband and I both love the car. We took the kids out for a spin and they loved the car too that they were so happy that we didn't get that car we were driving over the weekend. All of us, individually, would have chosen this same car... and collectively, we now share the same love for the car that we are, for sure, going to take really good care of the car for the next 10+ years.

That, Traveler, is how a superior hive is supposed to work. My husband and I, together with our children, choosing the same thing out of our own individual free wills. So, that's where our evolution needs to go.

Edited November 5, 2012 by anatess

[Anddenex]

Would Christ do exactly what God would do in any given situation? Are we okay with that idea?

Oh no Seminary... I am not getting into another discussion with you, you like to call my comments "baloney". (just kidding)

Yes.

or is that bizarre that they would act the same way?

No.

Would we be okay if Christ looks exactly like God

Yes. We already have doctrine specifying God and Jesus Christ are the same. I once read, that the only way we will know Heavenly Father from Jesus is by the Holy Ghost, or by principled intelligence.

We are also told in scripture that Seth was in the exact image of his father Adam. We have identical twins in life, some almost nearly impossible to distinguish, unless something is changed on the outside.

Or would that be bizarre to us?

No.

If I am fortunate to make it into the Celestial Kingdom and you and your wife are there too, would it bug you if she and I had the same traits, same personality, skills

No. When we reach perfection, I assume we will all have similar traits, personality, and skills.

and even appearance?

Yes. Unless you were twins in this life, there is no reason in the next life for my wife and yourself to look alike, or take upon the same appearance. This in my opinion would be a loss of individuality, and a painful loss, at least to me. When resurrected I am not familiar with any doctrine which specifies we will take on a similar appearance as others. If we did, my next question would be, whose appearance would we take? Heavenly Fathers? Heavenly Mothers? Gabriel's? Michaels? Eve's?

Why would that bug you if it does bug you?

It doesn't. However, it would bug me if two people who look nothing alike in appearance here, by some change, we know nothing of currently, they are the same in appearance.

Why is having something that nobody else has important?

I will only speak for appearance. It isn't bothersome if all are perfect. This is our main goal in life, perfection, for us through the Atonement.

To me that is the opposite direction of what the Celestial Kingdom stands for, it is not a place for individual stand-outs.

I would agree, I wouldn't consider this individuality. Yet, the idea presented in Abraham about Kolob presents either an eternal perspective of stars, or only a temporal perspective of stars. Where one star differs in glory from other stars.

There is a place for that, where one star shines differently than another, and I don't see the value of wanting that.

I find the interesting concept within scripture regarding stars, and stars glories.

I am curious what is individuality to you?

I know you. You know me. Distinguishable.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh no Seminary... I am not getting into another discussion with you, you like to call my comments "baloney". (just kidding)

Yes.

or is that bizarre that they would act the same way?

No.

Yes. We already have doctrine specifying God and Jesus Christ are the same. I once read, that the only way we will know Heavenly Father from Jesus is by the Holy Ghost, or by principled intelligence.

We are also told in scripture that Seth was in the exact image of his father Adam. We have identical twins in life, some almost nearly impossible to distinguish, unless something is changed on the outside.

No.

No. When we reach perfection, I assume we will all have similar traits, personality, and skills.

Yes. Unless you were twins in this life, there is no reason in the next life for my wife and yourself to look alike, or take upon the same appearance. This in my opinion would be a loss of individuality, and a painful loss, at least to me. When resurrected I am not familiar with any doctrine which specifies we will take on a similar appearance as others. If we did, my next question would be, whose appearance would we take? Heavenly Fathers? Heavenly Mothers? Gabriel's? Michaels? Eve's?

It doesn't. However, it would bug me if two people who look nothing alike in appearance here, by some change, we know nothing of currently, they are the same in appearance.

I will only speak for appearance. It isn't bothersome if all are perfect. This is our main goal in life, perfection, for us through the Atonement.

I would agree, I wouldn't consider this individuality. Yet, the idea presented in Abraham about Kolob presents either an eternal perspective of stars, or only a temporal perspective of stars. Where one star differs in glory from other stars.

I find the interesting concept within scripture regarding stars, and stars glories.

I know you. You know me. Distinguishable.

Hey, I already said sorry about the baloney thing, thanks for kidding.

About the bolded above; This is exactly what I am talking about. I find it interesting that a person, understanding the temporary nature of our current existence would want to hold onto distinguishing traits (like appearance) that are obviously driven by the corrupted genetics of this fallen world. You would want to believe that your eternal appearance is driven by the decisions of your earthly ancestors over traits given to you by eternal ancestors. In all of our histories, if one goes back far enough and we were to see exactly our genetic history I would venture to say that not all of the passing on of genes was done in a manner that would be pleasing to God. In other words, somewhere back in everyone's history there was a birth out of wedlock, there may have even been a rape, pillage of one village to another, slavery, the effects of war in either killing of available males or the displacement of one group towards another. In other words, your current set of genes and mine were determined by less than Celestial acts. And you want me to believe that somehow my eternal appearance is determined by the sum of all those acts? I don't understand why I would want to hold onto such a thing. Why would we want to wear the scars of this life on our sleeve, (so-to-speak)? Just so we stand out and distinguish ourselves one from another?

If my ancestors fled to a more northern land because their village was destroyed by war and over the centuries of fallen corrupted carnal influences now my genes carry light skin and blonde hair, I am stuck with that eternally because of some war that made my ancestors flee their home land? Or maybe my ancestor was sent by the king of Spain to help in conquering a new world and in doing so that ancestor had relations with a native woman, so now my genes carry European blood instead of the pure native American blood that existed before, so now I take on that set of appearances forever? ... whatever the history, we all have it somewhere, if we go back far enough.

To hold onto that appearance seems like holding onto carnal things to me. I think I would prefer to have it the way God made it, as He did in the Garden of Eden, only one copy of each, man and woman. It isn't an easy thing to desire because my carnal body wants me to like me as I am, but isn't that the test ... carnal versus spiritual desires. The whole reason there are racial divides is because there is a part of the carnal corrupted brain that says, 'like things that are similar to you'. Of course, that isn't 100% strong but in general our brains are wired that way to feel more comfortable around people that are similar to ourselves in various ways, mostly cultural. Or to prefer one thing over another. We really want that to continue into the next life? To hold onto those carnal values? God is not a respecter of persons, even though we try to be.

I think this takes "oneness" to a deeper level but it may be the hardest level for many, to give up the very thing that makes them feel special; what they see in the mirror. If one loves what they see in the mirror more than what they see in another then how is that loving their neighbor as their self? The desire to remain the same as one is here over having a different appearance, to me, is a statement of not loving your neighbor as your self, as it is loving one self more. I try not to have attachments to things that turn to dust, earthly treasures.

[Praetorian_Brow]

What is with the whole, "G-d", business? If that is some kind of personal interpretation of avoiding using his name, then its not working. We know who and what its for, as do you.

[Anddenex]

What is with the whole, "G-d", business? If that is some kind of personal interpretation of avoiding using his name, then its not working. We know who and what its for, as do you.

The Traveler has actually explained in other posts why he use "G-d". It has very little to do with avoiding using his name, but actually a conversation he has with a friend, within a different nation, which is I believe he said against the law to use the whole word "God", thus he uses "G-d" in respect to his friend.

[Anddenex]

About the bolded above; This is exactly what I am talking about. I find it interesting that a person, understanding the temporary nature of our current existence would want to hold onto distinguishing traits (like appearance) that are obviously driven by the corrupted genetics of this fallen world.

I am in understanding that people will be resurrected, if they were a mature adult, according to their prime.

I assume I don't look at my appearance as corrupt genetics, more so, the genetics which have individually identified me and provide me with an identity.

I don't think I will have brown eyes. I don't think I will have auburn hair like I do after the resurrection. I think our eyes will be as it is described in, I think in, Revelation describing the Lord's eyes.

In the same tone, thus some of our appearances will be similar, overall, I think I will still have the same jaw line, eye bone structure, etc... This is what defines me as me, and individual within a whole.

Will obesity be an issue in the after life, resurrection? No, I don't believe so. I feel sorry for women with augmentations, especially if they really upsized their appearance. In the resurrection I am thinking they will be very disappointed.

In all our pictures, even temple, the only people who are shown as the same are Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Is this due to our natures, and that is all we can do, or is it truly a representation of what will be?

I think my Mother and Father will still look like my Mother and Father, except they will be wrapped in eternal Celestial Glory.