Spirit, Life and Dark Energy

[Vort]

So – in light of LDS doctrine and scientific astrological theory – is anyone interested or open to a discussion of the speculative possibility that dark energy is tightly coupled to LDS doctrine of spirit matter?

I have avoided commenting on this thread because I disbelieve that so-called "dark energy" has anything at all to do with so-called "spirit matter". There are several reasons for this:

• "Spirit matter" is an inferred substance. Joseph Smith taught that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter", and spirits are made from SOMETHING -- ergo, spirit matter. But does it behave as "regular" matter? For example, does it occupy space? It seems spirit can go into and out of flesh, as well as through walls and ceilings, if NDEs are to be believed. I suppose it could occupy space between particles or some such thing...but that is hardly a robust foundational assumption. If "spirit matter" does not occupy space the way regular matter does, then why ought we to think that it has other properties of regular matter, such as inertial or gravitational mass? For example, it certainly does not have any obvious chemical interaction with regular matter.
  
• "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are exceptionally inelegant attempts at a solution to the problem of "missing matter". A far more elegant solution would be a sort of "übergravity" fifth force, weaker than gravity but becoming dominant at very large range, much like gravity is weaker than electromagnetism but dominates at long distances. Until credible evidence suggests otherwise, I disbelieve in "dark matter" and "dark energy".
  
• Without exception (that I can think of), every attempt to shoehorn a scientific theory to explain a vague religious precept ends badly. Well, there may be one exception: Matter-energy conservation vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's rejection of ex nihilo creationism. But other than that, I can't think of one attempt at using a scientific theory to explain a religious idea that was both convincing and durable.
  To be fair, you stated up front that this was speculative, so I'm not suggesting you were acting under any sort of false pretense or expectation.

So why do I comment now? Only because I want to throw that into the mix for whoever might be contemplating these ideas.

(And for the record, I'm pretty sure you meant astronomical, not astrological, in your OP.)

[Seminarysnoozer]

[*]"Spirit matter" is an inferred substance. Joseph Smith taught that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter", and spirits are made from SOMETHING -- ergo, spirit matter. But does it behave as "regular" matter? For example, does it occupy space? It seems spirit can go into and out of flesh, as well as through walls and ceilings, if NDEs are to be believed. I suppose it could occupy space between particles or some such thing...but that is hardly a robust foundational assumption. If "spirit matter" does not occupy space the way regular matter does, then why ought we to think that it has other properties of regular matter, such as inertial or gravitational mass? For example, it certainly does not have any obvious chemical interaction with regular matter.

I have already tried to suggest that idea but with little success. This topic spawns into a pondering of how exactly does "fine" matter interact with "coarse" matter. I agree that we know so little about it that we cannot assume it is through some common measurable physical science property as if fine matter is somehow connected to missing pieces of the periodic chart (coarse matter). I would tend to believe there is the periodic table (coarse matter) and then there is the separate "fine matter" table, such that one does not have an inherit interaction with the other. The interaction would have to be arranged or forced in some way, i.e. - creation and the Fall. Without the creation, the two aren't "naturally" found together. There is no per-organization of material mixed state.

As far as we know, the two might interact at a level to someone interacting in a virtual cyber world. Similar to the end of the movie Avatar, the two are separate entities until they become one but only when there is a change in the physical matter to an eternal state and thus no longer "coarse" matter - resurrection. This is supported by the idea that one type has to change to interact with the other. The body is transformed to interact with God or Christ has to descend to interact with coarse matter.

[Traveler]

....

• Without exception (that I can think of), every attempt to shoehorn a scientific theory to explain a vague religious precept ends badly. Well, there may be one exception: Matter-energy conservation vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's rejection of ex nihilo creationism. But other than that, I can't think of one attempt at using a scientific theory to explain a religious idea that was both convincing and durable.
  To be fair, you stated up front that this was speculative, so I'm not suggesting you were acting under any sort of false pretense or expectation.
  

So why do I comment now? Only because I want to throw that into the mix for whoever might be contemplating these ideas.

(And for the record, I'm pretty sure you meant astronomical, not astrological, in your OP.)

Good to have you involved. I tend to have observed the opposite. That is, that as religious theologians have ignored the advances of science and have refused to find religious “connections” a separation between science and religion has resulted and religion ideology has suffered the worse for it. In fact I know of no such disagreements where religion has either come out a head or contributed anything to the landscape of understanding. The most famous such incident was Galileo and findings confirming Heliocentrism over Geocentrism. But there were other problems concerning Galileo’s theory of tides and comets. Before Galileo there were problems concerning a flat earth as opposed to a round earth – which despite history, most traditional Christians have not only abandoned the flat earth doctrine but deny that it was ever a part of the religious landscape.

It is interesting to note that in the ancient world such controversies did not occur; as for the most part science and religion was well integrated – examples are the Ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, China and even Mayan civilizations. It is also interesting to note that in ancient scripture – both Bible and Book of Mormon there are no recorded controversies between spiritual and empirical observations. If there is – I would thank anyone willing to point out such controversies in scripture.

I am surprised that some are not willing to explore possibilities of connections to spiritual matter and dark energy. We know there is a connection between spiritual matter and physical matter as we understand “normal” matter. And we know that all things of this universe are connected through G-d and the creation of this universe. I find it interesting that 20 years ago no one had any notion of dark energy and now that scientist have drawn attention to such “stuff” – for the most part, it appears to me that religious thinkers are running away from investigating dark energy, deadly afraid to consider any possibilities????

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

In fact I know of no such disagreements where religion has either come out a head or contributed anything to the landscape of understanding.

The Traveler

Genesis 2 : " 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Studies show the mortality rate for single men aged between 30 and 59 two and half times higher than those who are married. Also widowed men and single mothers have more acute and chronic health conditions than those married of the same age. In addition, children whose parents live together but are not married are more likely to get poorer results at school, abandon education earlier and develop a serious illness (Married couples are healthier and live longer - and so do their children | Mail Online) Religion has done a lot, more than we can measure, in the ideal of holding the family as the center of society.

Also, what about the word of wisdom? Certainly, that understanding preceded current understanding regarding substances such as tobacco.

Lets see who comes out on top in 2 Nephi 5: the followers of religion; " 11 And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind.

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or ccompass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land. ... 15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance."

Or those that hardened their their hearts to religion; " 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction."

Lets give credit where credit is due; according to N Elden Tanner; "“For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” (Isa. 60:2.)

This period of the apostasy was known as the Dark Ages because the light of the gospel was withdrawn from the earth.

More recently, in modern revelation, the Lord has declared: “And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel.” (D&C 45:28.)"

So, what advanced our understanding?

Science has yet to prove this fact; "“And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.” (D&C 88:67.) ... and they probably never will.

[Traveler]

Genesis 2 : " 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Studies show the mortality rate for single men aged between 30 and 59 two and half times higher than those who are married. Also widowed men and single mothers have more acute and chronic health conditions than those married of the same age. In addition, children whose parents live together but are not married are more likely to get poorer results at school, abandon education earlier and develop a serious illness (Married couples are healthier and live longer - and so do their children | Mail Online) Religion has done a lot, more than we can measure, in the ideal of holding the family as the center of society.

Also, what about the word of wisdom? Certainly, that understanding preceded current understanding regarding substances such as tobacco.

Lets see who comes out on top in 2 Nephi 5: the followers of religion; " 11 And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind.

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or ccompass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land. ... 15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance."

Or those that hardened their their hearts to religion; " 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction."

Lets give credit where credit is due; according to N Elden Tanner; "“For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” (Isa. 60:2.)

This period of the apostasy was known as the Dark Ages because the light of the gospel was withdrawn from the earth.

More recently, in modern revelation, the Lord has declared: “And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel.” (D&C 45:28.)"

So, what advanced our understanding?

Science has yet to prove this fact; "“And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.” (D&C 88:67.) ... and they probably never will.

I am a little confused - Are you arguing for or against the integration of empirical and “spiritual” evidences? It almost seems that you want to argue against such correlation but rely a great deal on empirical findings to prove your spiritual point of view.

It appears to me that you agree that the best analysis of empirical evidence will in the end validate spiritual revelation. If this is the case – I agree completely.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am a little confused - Are you arguing for or against the integration of empirical and “spiritual” evidences? It almost seems that you want to argue against such correlation but rely a great deal on empirical findings to prove your spiritual point of view.

It appears to me that you agree that the best analysis of empirical evidence will in the end validate spiritual revelation. If this is the case – I agree completely.

The Traveler

I was more arguing the process. First spiritual then the other will follow. But if one does not put the spiritual first those evidences may be lost or "darkened".

To me, the whole discussion is about the manner in which the understanding is sought. Not so much whether it could be integrated or not except with the idea that if secular learning, or the learning of man is primary, then there is a limitation to what can be learned.

Matthew 6: "19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Just so we are clear, this world and all that pertains to this world which includes all of its "corrupted" science and features will be dust in the end. This world (and I am assuming the universe too) will one day receive its paridisical glory and in the process be changed from its current state. We should not put our heart in treasures that turn to dust in the end.

The heart of the matter D&C 130: " 19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."

When considering that scripture; one should ask their self, 1.) How much knowledge did I have while living in God's presence for innumerable years (pre-mortal life) to the point of not being able to advance any further? How many facts about science, "dark energy" etc. did I understand prior to coming here? When talking about knowledge "gained" it is in comparison to what is already known (from pre-mortal life). I think most would agree, there probably isn't a single fact that can be learned that one in the end would say, "I never knew that." 2.) the principle outlined in verse 19 is centered around diligence and obedience. Exactly what I am trying to say, put spiritual things first and all else will come. Without the obedience part (of course we are talking about obedience to the Lord and His gospel) it is not to our advantage. There is no advantage otherwise!!!

[Traveler]

I was more arguing the process. First spiritual then the other will follow. But if one does not put the spiritual first those evidences may be lost or "darkened".

To me, the whole discussion is about the manner in which the understanding is sought. Not so much whether it could be integrated or not except with the idea that if secular learning, or the learning of man is primary, then there is a limitation to what can be learned.

Matthew 6: "19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Just so we are clear, this world and all that pertains to this world which includes all of its "corrupted" science and features will be dust in the end. This world (and I am assuming the universe too) will one day receive its paridisical glory and in the process be changed from its current state. We should not put our heart in treasures that turn to dust in the end.

The heart of the matter D&C 130: " 19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."

When considering that scripture; one should ask their self, 1.) How much knowledge did I have while living in God's presence for innumerable years (pre-mortal life) to the point of not being able to advance any further? How many facts about science, "dark energy" etc. did I understand prior to coming here? When talking about knowledge "gained" it is in comparison to what is already known (from pre-mortal life). I think most would agree, there probably isn't a single fact that can be learned that one in the end would say, "I never knew that." 2.) the principle outlined in verse 19 is centered around diligence and obedience. Exactly what I am trying to say, put spiritual things first and all else will come. Without the obedience part (of course we are talking about obedience to the Lord and His gospel) it is not to our advantage. There is no advantage otherwise!!!

When Joseph saw G-d (Father and Son) in the grove of trees - I am quite sure G-d spoke to the corruption of religion -- not science. Why do you think the world is more likely to corrupt religion than science?

It is interesting to me that the corruption of religion (also known as the great apostasy) resulted in corrupted science. Historically we see that G-d prepared mankind for a religious reformation with a reformation of science as well. Though it appears to me you intend to separate the two - I submit that historically the two have always mirrored each other. The corruption of one has resulted in the corruption of the other

The advantage with empirical interpretations – is that it can be checked for accuracy. Religion – especially corrupted religion, on the other hand can easily hide behind faith and claim only the faithful can see and understand (as with the story of the Emperor and his new clothes.) Thus there are divisions aplenty in religion. And so it is that I have come to observe - If someone cannot identify and appreciate empirical truths that can be demonstrated --- how can they be trusted to identify and appreciate the difference between true and false religious truths which relay on faith alone?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

When Joseph saw G-d (Father and Son) in the grove of trees - I am quite sure G-d spoke to the corruption of religion -- not science. Why do you think the world is more likely to corrupt religion than science?

It is interesting to me that the corruption of religion (also known as the great apostasy) resulted in corrupted science. Historically we see that G-d prepared mankind for a religious reformation with a reformation of science as well. Though it appears to me you intend to separate the two - I submit that historically the two have always mirrored each other. The corruption of one has resulted in the corruption of the other

The advantage with empirical interpretations – is that it can be checked for accuracy. Religion – especially corrupted religion, on the other hand can easily hide behind faith and claim only the faithful can see and understand (as with the story of the Emperor and his new clothes.) Thus there are divisions aplenty in religion. And so it is that I have come to observe - If someone cannot identify and appreciate empirical truths that can be demonstrated --- how can they be trusted to identify and appreciate the difference between true and false religious truths which relay on faith alone?

The Traveler

Just because one thing affects another does not mean that they are not separate. I can drive a car but I am not a car. And a car cannot drive me, it doesn't work both ways. They are separate, we are told they are separate and that is obvious. It is our duty and test to be able to discern things that are spiritual versus things that are not.

Again, Paul distinguishes these two forms of learning and the restrictions of of doing it one way or another. 1 Corinthians 2; " 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

He goes on to explain that in detail. "The spirit of man" limits learning whereas "the spirit of God searcheth all things." What is limited to the spirit of man? " 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Paul establishes very clearly that there are "things" of the Spirit of God to be learned that the natural man cannot. Do you accept that fact or do you wish to argue against Paul?

What is the difference between the natural man and one that can discern the Spirit of God? It all depends on the motive, it depends on the drive and purpose. If one is focused on the religion, the spiritual, God then it becomes possible to comprehend all things. If one does not focus on that then learning is limited. D&C 88; " 67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things."

What does it mean to have one's eye "single" to the glory of God? It is the opposite of the Tower of Babel approach. There is a single way to reach the understanding of God and it is not through the knowledge of man or by having two different goals.

[Traveler]

Just because one thing affects another does not mean that they are not separate. I can drive a car but I am not a car. And a car cannot drive me, it doesn't work both ways. They are separate, we are told they are separate and that is obvious. It is our duty and test to be able to discern things that are spiritual versus things that are not.

Again, Paul distinguishes these two forms of learning and the restrictions of of doing it one way or another. 1 Corinthians 2; " 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

He goes on to explain that in detail. "The spirit of man" limits learning whereas "the spirit of God searcheth all things." What is limited to the spirit of man? " 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Paul establishes very clearly that there are "things" of the Spirit of God to be learned that the natural man cannot. Do you accept that fact or do you wish to argue against Paul?

What is the difference between the natural man and one that can discern the Spirit of God? It all depends on the motive, it depends on the drive and purpose. If one is focused on the religion, the spiritual, God then it becomes possible to comprehend all things. If one does not focus on that then learning is limited. D&C 88; " 67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things."

What does it mean to have one's eye "single" to the glory of God? It is the opposite of the Tower of Babel approach. There is a single way to reach the understanding of God and it is not through the knowledge of man or by having two different goals.

Are you saying that science (empirical understanding) is the direct results of the "natural man". And that all things in scripture that are spiritual are opposite to all things empirical - which being empirical are associated only with the natural man. Thus we should/must reject all things empirical as the scriptures encourage us to reject the natural man?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Are you saying that science (empirical understanding) is the direct results of the "natural man". And that all things in scripture that are spiritual are opposite to all things empirical - which being empirical are associated only with the natural man. Thus we should/must reject all things empirical as the scriptures encourage us to reject the natural man?

The Traveler

No, that is exactly why it requires discernment. It is not that black and white. We all have the light of Christ and we all passed the first estate test and so there is no man that is purely a "natural man". It is the end point of the spectrum we find ourselves between the "natural man" versus the spiritual (perfect) man. There was only one who was on the opposite point of the spectrum while in the flesh. A test that results in a gradation of responses and reward requires questions that are not black and white or true and false but ones that are part this and part the other. In the end we are put into Kingdoms of varying degrees, not just one or the other. A purely carnal choice or a purely spiritual choice or thought rarely exists in this life. The true or false test occurred as the first estate test. Now we face the separation and gradation amongst of all those who got an A on the last test. Even Joseph Smith, the spiritual giant he was, wrote this "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Think about the difficulty when we talk about things like the "burning in the bosom." Is that heartburn, a heart attack, or a prompting from the spirit? It requires a bit of discerning power to know the difference, not just some analytical or empirically obvious objective description. In fact we have a hard time describing spiritual experiences with natural man words. We have to use metaphors.

There are natural influences, there are spiritual influences and to what degree we tune into either of the two, so we are minded. Are we typically somewhere in between being spiritually minded, or carnally minded, on a spectrum between those two descriptions. Both influences persist throughout life. On fast Sunday, for example, I can be hungry. The Apostles can be sleepy while they pray. Even when someone is spiritually minded, the natural man exists and still influences, thus being "in the flesh". We have to take the test "according to the flesh." After choices are made one ignores one and listens to the other as we cannot serve two masters and in that process becomes either carnally minded or spiritually minded. And the fruits of the two are described by Paul. It is an ever changing spectrum alternating one over the other at various times. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" could not be removed in this life.

The nature of the test we face is that the two are hardly distinguishable unless a person is listening carefully and discerning carefully. This is why the spirit is called the still, small voice. Mark 4 : " 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

How is it possible to see and not perceive and be hearing and not hear or understand? It is because there are two kinds of hearing and seeing, through different eyes and ears (metaphorically speaking). And it is supposed to be that way, it is part of the test for dependency on the Lord vs. shunning those promptings and only relying on the natural man experience. As much as people try, it cannot be done through natural eyes and ears.

We are, by default, natural beings unless we are reborn of the spirit. It is not only a rebirth needed but a growth and endurance in the spirit nature (while in the flesh) that is needed. The spiritual influences take effort to discern whereas the carnal ones take no effort, thus called the "natural" man or default influence.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

No, that is exactly why it requires discernment. It is not that black and white. We all have the light of Christ and we all passed the first estate test and so there is no man that is purely a "natural man". It is the end point of the spectrum we find ourselves between the "natural man" versus the spiritual (perfect) man. There was only one who was on the opposite point of the spectrum while in the flesh. A test that results in a gradation of responses and reward requires questions that are not black and white or true and false but ones that are part this and part the other. In the end we are put into Kingdoms of varying degrees, not just one or the other. A purely carnal choice or a purely spiritual choice or thought rarely exists in this life. The true or false test occurred as the first estate test. Now we face the separation and gradation amongst of all those who got an A on the last test. Even Joseph Smith, the spiritual giant he was, wrote this "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Think about the difficulty when we talk about things like the "burning in the bosom." Is that heartburn, a heart attack, or a prompting from the spirit? It requires a bit of discerning power to know the difference, not just some analytical or empirically obvious objective description. In fact we have a hard time describing spiritual experiences with natural man words. We have to use metaphors.

There are natural influences, there are spiritual influences and to what degree we tune into either of the two, so we are minded. Are we typically somewhere in between being spiritually minded, or carnally minded, on a spectrum between those two descriptions. Both influences persist throughout life. On fast Sunday, for example, I can be hungry. The Apostles can be sleepy while they pray. Even when someone is spiritually minded, the natural man exists and still influences, thus being "in the flesh". We have to take the test "according to the flesh." After choices are made one ignores one and listens to the other as we cannot serve two masters and in that process becomes either carnally minded or spiritually minded. And the fruits of the two are described by Paul. It is an ever changing spectrum alternating one over the other at various times. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" could not be removed in this life.

The nature of the test we face is that the two are hardly distinguishable unless a person is listening carefully and discerning carefully. This is why the spirit is called the still, small voice. Mark 4 : " 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

How is it possible to see and not perceive and be hearing and not hear or understand? It is because there are two kinds of hearing and seeing, through different eyes and ears (metaphorically speaking). And it is supposed to be that way, it is part of the test for dependency on the Lord vs. shunning those promptings and only relying on the natural man experience. As much as people try, it cannot be done through natural eyes and ears.

We are, by default, natural beings unless we are reborn of the spirit. It is not only a rebirth needed but a growth and endurance in the spirit nature (while in the flesh) that is needed. The spiritual influences take effort to discern whereas the carnal ones take no effort, thus called the "natural" man or default influence.

Where on the spectrum between the natural man and spiritual perfection do you place your understanding of things and your opinion?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Where on the spectrum between the natural man and spiritual perfection do you place your understanding of things and your opinion?

The Traveler

About what topic and when? It varies from moment to moment and from topic to topic. But I would say that most of my thoughts and reactions are based in the natural man. The spirit is under the effects of the veil. How much do you remember of your spiritual training before this life? It is enough of an influence that God can use that to judge our character, whatever that amount is. It doesn't have to be a lot. And if not actively sought a person drifts back into the "natural man" state. It is the thing for which we have to endure.

Like Jesus put it; " 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Even when the spirit is willing, for even an apostle in the presence of Jesus, they could only hold out one hour before the natural man took over again. This happened several times. That is how strong the natural man influence is.

[Traveler]

About what topic and when?

I was referring to this topic (specifically your post #34 on this thread) and now - or when you posted it.

It varies from moment to moment and from topic to topic. But I would say that most of my thoughts and reactions are based in the natural man. The spirit is under the effects of the veil. How much do you remember of your spiritual training before this life? It is enough of an influence that God can use that to judge our character, whatever that amount is. It doesn't have to be a lot. And if not actively sought a person drifts back into the "natural man" state. It is the thing for which we have to endure.

Like Jesus put it; " 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Even when the spirit is willing, for even an apostle in the presence of Jesus, they could only hold out one hour before the natural man took over again. This happened several times. That is how strong the natural man influence is.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I was referring to this topic (specifically your post #34 on this thread) and now - or when you posted it.

The Traveler

The key issue is recognizing our nothingness, as Moses put it, and therefore relying on the Lord for our guidance. That, to me, suggests that our thoughts and drives are mostly carnal in nature. The spiritual influences tend to be described as small and quiet and take a great deal of effort to discern and receive.

Again, I think the place I am at on that gradient varies from moment to moment reflected in whether I am spiritually in tune or not as I would assume it does with everyone.

Understanding our dual being nature, both physical and spiritual, as both Elder Bednar and President Mckay have discussed, both natures are active at the same time. We are never just one or the other, so it is a gradient, not either/or. The way that spiritual influences tend to be transmitted is a feeling but difficult to describe. This is one way to assist in distinguishing those influences. D&C 9; " 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

There is thought (as in "you took no though save it was to ask me") and then there is thought combined with a feeling (as in "study in your mind" and "your bosom shall burn within you") but there is never a feeling without a thought (meaning spiritual influences without the carnal) unless a person is out of body or translated temporarily such as Moses experience or Joseph Smith.

How do you see it?

[Traveler]

The key issue is recognizing our nothingness, as Moses put it, and therefore relying on the Lord for our guidance. That, to me, suggests that our thoughts and drives are mostly carnal in nature. The spiritual influences tend to be described as small and quiet and take a great deal of effort to discern and receive.

Again, I think the place I am at on that gradient varies from moment to moment reflected in whether I am spiritually in tune or not as I would assume it does with everyone.

Understanding our dual being nature, both physical and spiritual, as both Elder Bednar and President Mckay have discussed, both natures are active at the same time. We are never just one or the other, so it is a gradient, not either/or. The way that spiritual influences tend to be transmitted is a feeling but difficult to describe. This is one way to assist in distinguishing those influences. D&C 9; " 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

There is thought (as in "you took no though save it was to ask me") and then there is thought combined with a feeling (as in "study in your mind" and "your bosom shall burn within you") but there is never a feeling without a thought (meaning spiritual influences without the carnal) unless a person is out of body or translated temporarily such as Moses experience or Joseph Smith.

How do you see it?

First - I do not understand your reasoning. I have decided that I cannot comment directly because I am not sure what you are talking about. This is why I asked you to apply your interpretation of physical verses spiritual to your specific comments on the forum – so I have some model of how this all comes together.

Next: I am not sure but I think you are using similar terms with different meaning and crossing the meaning in your application. But since I do not understand your construct I am not sure.

My understanding is that the natural man is not necessarily or exclusively physical. Defining the natural man exclusively as the physical self (which I think you are doing – but not sure) leads to misunderstanding. I believe there are examples of exclusively spirit beings that meet the definition of a “natural” man (which is the enemy of G-d). By the same token it appears that there are physical beings that have no “natural man” tendencies – all Celestial beings proving this case.

Similarly with the definition of spiritual; which does not always mean that which is spirit. I believe a spirit being can be spiritual and a spirit being can be quite un-spiritual. The example of spirit beings that are not spiritual is Satan and his unclean spirit followers.

Finely – though you have a physical nature and converse with me strictly through physical means – it seems to me you are very spiritual and your physical communications carry a high degree of spirituality. Thus I do not understand why you down grade the physical as much as you do – or as it appears to me that you do.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

My understanding is that the natural man is not necessarily or exclusively physical. Defining the natural man exclusively as the physical self (which I think you are doing – but not sure) leads to misunderstanding. I believe there are examples of exclusively spirit beings that meet the definition of a “natural” man (which is the enemy of G-d). By the same token it appears that there are physical beings that have no “natural man” tendencies – all Celestial beings proving this case.The Traveler

The natural man is not just "physical" but corrupted, fallen physical. Which doesn't allow one to add to that definition someone who is a Celestial being with "physical" properties or someone who has been translated or transfigured temporarily.

I agree that there are spirit beings that are the enemy to God that do not have a physical body. But that description does not apply to any of us born into this world because we all passed the first estate test. We were pure and innocent before coming here, every one of us. So, again, we are just referring to beings who were born into a fallen body while they remain in that state.

And I don't take it to mean something that is an all or nothing state. Again, I believe in the way David O. Mckay and Elder Bednar explained it, that we are dual beings. If the body is just a covering to the spirit then we are not really "dual" beings, we would not have two natures. We would have only one nature that may be modified by the covering but it is still one nature. We are not that way currently. We are dual beings with dual natures. I know we don't talk about that issue strongly in church meetings etc. but there are several that have, namely Paul, David O. Mckay and Elder Bednar.

Are we just a single nature being that is suppressed or modified by the body? Or do we truly have two natures, making us a dual being. David O. McKay is pretty clear about these two natures and how they oppose each other; "Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual. Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body." and

"Life is a test to see which of our two natures we will follow and develop.

Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, his soul, upon things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical nature, or whether he will make as his life’s pursuit the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

Ensign July 2006; "President David O. McKay (1873–1970) taught that because of the Fall we have a dual nature: “One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.” 1

Our spirits come from the presence of God, and “every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning” (D&C 93:38). Our physical bodies are also gifts from God. One reason we wanted to come to this earth was to become more like our Heavenly Father, who has a physical body. Consequently, one of our challenges in mortality is to learn how to manage, care for, and use our bodies properly. If we can govern the natural tendencies of the flesh, we will rise toward the kind of spiritual life President McKay described. But if we let “the natural man” govern, we will find ourselves at enmity with God and His purposes (see Mosiah 3:19)."

The "natural man" is contrasted with the "spirit of man" that was innocent in the beginning and the "natural man" tendency is as a result of coming to earth and obtaining a physical body. It is pretty clearly described where the "natural man" tendencies come from.

[Traveler]

The natural man is not just "physical" but corrupted, fallen physical. Which doesn't allow one to add to that definition someone who is a Celestial being with "physical" properties or someone who has been translated or transfigured temporarily.

I agree that there are spirit beings that are the enemy to God that do not have a physical body. But that description does not apply to any of us born into this world because we all passed the first estate test. We were pure and innocent before coming here, every one of us. So, again, we are just referring to beings who were born into a fallen body while they remain in that state.

And I don't take it to mean something that is an all or nothing state. Again, I believe in the way David O. Mckay and Elder Bednar explained it, that we are dual beings. If the body is just a covering to the spirit then we are not really "dual" beings, we would not have two natures. We would have only one nature that may be modified by the covering but it is still one nature. We are not that way currently. We are dual beings with dual natures. I know we don't talk about that issue strongly in church meetings etc. but there are several that have, namely Paul, David O. Mckay and Elder Bednar.

Are we just a single nature being that is suppressed or modified by the body? Or do we truly have two natures, making us a dual being. David O. McKay is pretty clear about these two natures and how they oppose each other; "Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual. Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body." and

"Life is a test to see which of our two natures we will follow and develop.

Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, his soul, upon things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical nature, or whether he will make as his life’s pursuit the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

Ensign July 2006; "President David O. McKay (1873–1970) taught that because of the Fall we have a dual nature: “One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.” 1

Our spirits come from the presence of God, and “every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning” (D&C 93:38). Our physical bodies are also gifts from God. One reason we wanted to come to this earth was to become more like our Heavenly Father, who has a physical body. Consequently, one of our challenges in mortality is to learn how to manage, care for, and use our bodies properly. If we can govern the natural tendencies of the flesh, we will rise toward the kind of spiritual life President McKay described. But if we let “the natural man” govern, we will find ourselves at enmity with God and His purposes (see Mosiah 3:19)."

The "natural man" is contrasted with the "spirit of man" that was innocent in the beginning and the "natural man" tendency is as a result of coming to earth and obtaining a physical body. It is pretty clearly described where the "natural man" tendencies come from.

Again I do not believe the "natural man" comes from or originates from the physical any more than from the spiritual. The natural man as you reference is influenced by the "SPIRIT BEING" and corrupted spirituality of Satan. I submit that without that corrupted spiritual influence that man - even fallen physical man - would not be an enemy of G-d. The fall clearly placed man (both physically and spiritually) under the influence of Satan and without the atonement man would remain under the influence of Satan even after all the physical (including every physical element of man) is separated from man and placed in the grave to return to dust. Also I would remind you that the scriptures tell us clearly that the same spirit (not physical influence) that controls us when we die will have power over us in the resurrection - the resurrection being that state that entirely removes all aspects that the fall has upon us physically.

I am not saying that the physical does not play a part in the natural man - I am saying that If you believe that is the only part and that there is nothing associated with corrupted spiritual elements - It is my opinion that you are very mistaken.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Also I would remind you that the scriptures tell us clearly that the same spirit (not physical influence) that controls us when we die will have power over us in the resurrection - the resurrection being that state that entirely removes all aspects that the fall has upon us physically.

I am not saying that the physical does not play a part in the natural man - I am saying that If you believe that is the only part and that there is nothing associated with corrupted spiritual elements - It is my opinion that you are very mistaken.

The Traveler

I think it is important to keep in mind that we all passed the first estate test and we all (essentially - save the sons of perdition) will receive a state of glory that far surpasses our understanding. As such, our spirit self, is heir to the Kingdom of God in some capacity. We enter this life pure and innocent and as heirs to the Kingdom, with promised eternal glory. This does not sound corrupted at all to me. Even the Telestial Kingdom is a Kingdom of glory.

The spirit can take on the aspects of this corruption over the course of our lives. Where our treasure is there will also be our heart. If we love the corruption, the things of this world, including the passions of the body, then we put our treasures in things that are not eternal and that will remain with us in spirit. I am not saying the spirit cannot become corrupted but that the corruption was introduced by being born into a fallen world, by becoming carnal, by being separated from our Heavenly Father. Children remain in a similar state to how we were before and that should be a description to you and me what the spirit provides. Even Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, even when they had choice until they received a fallen body.

The resurrection, as you stated removes all aspects of the fall and therefore removes the corruption. There are many scriptures that say that. Mormon says it well; " 21 And the day soon cometh that your mortal must put on immortality, and these bodies which are now moldering in corruption must soon become incorruptible bodies; and then ye must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be judged according to your works; and if it so be that ye are righteous, then are ye blessed with your fathers who have gone before you."

Our bodies become incorruptible and then we are judged. The righteous and the unrighteous having bodies "moldering in corruption" will put on immortality and be free from the corruption and then we will be judged by our works. Some more valiant than others in the second estate but all faithful in the first.

D&C 76; " 81 And again, we asaw the glory of the btelestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the cglory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.

82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.

83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.

84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;"

** the spirits that go to Hell are redeemed via the resurrection, not until the last one but still the same, redeemed. The corruption will be gone by the end of the resurrection (the receiving of a glorified body). Christ will overcome all!!! And they become glorious enough to be ministered to by the Holy Ghost, something that we find very difficult to maintain here in this life.

[Traveler]

I think it is important to keep in mind that we all passed the first estate test and we all (essentially - save the sons of perdition) will receive a state of glory that far surpasses our understanding. As such, our spirit self, is heir to the Kingdom of God in some capacity. We enter this life pure and innocent and as heirs to the Kingdom, with promised eternal glory. This does not sound corrupted at all to me. Even the Telestial Kingdom is a Kingdom of glory.

....

We are told that there are two deaths because of the fall - a physical death and a "spiritual death". I do not know why spiritual death does not sound like a corrupted spiritual state to you -- it sure does to me.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

We are told that there are two deaths because of the fall - a physical death and a "spiritual death". I do not know why spiritual death does not sound like a corrupted spiritual state to you -- it sure does to me.

The Traveler

No, I agree. It, to me, is what allows for our spirits to drift away from its starting point of purity. But, as children remain pure, like their starting point, the source of that drift comes from the corruption we are exposed to here and one's choice in following it or not. If it were spiritual death alone then the spirits of children would have died corrupted. Whether one points their tent towards Sodom or the Temple is based in their spirit's direction, I will give you that. But, Sodom had to be presented as a choice and the physical body facilitates that with its passions and drives, "the natural man".

Our goal in this life is to remain pure as we started, like children and to not let carnal influences change our heart's desire. Our inheritance is something we come into this world owning fully and it is ours to lose. I think this is why the War in Heaven was such a tough one. The argument on the other side was, 'why take a risk in losing something we already had?' But those people didn't appreciate or desire putting in the effort it would take to overcome these carnal influences and to show how much we really love our spiritual heritage. The didn't appreciate the value of knowing good and evil.

Elder Bednar April 2013 Conference; "As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test."

[Traveler]

No, I agree. It, to me, is what allows for our spirits to drift away from its starting point of purity. But, as children remain pure, like their starting point, the source of that drift comes from the corruption we are exposed to here and one's choice in following it or not. If it were spiritual death alone then the spirits of children would have died corrupted. Whether one points their tent towards Sodom or the Temple is based in their spirit's direction, I will give you that. But, Sodom had to be presented as a choice and the physical body facilitates that with its passions and drives, "the natural man".

Our goal in this life is to remain pure as we started, like children and to not let carnal influences change our heart's desire. Our inheritance is something we come into this world owning fully and it is ours to lose. I think this is why the War in Heaven was such a tough one. The argument on the other side was, 'why take a risk in losing something we already had?' But those people didn't appreciate or desire putting in the effort it would take to overcome these carnal influences and to show how much we really love our spiritual heritage. The didn't appreciate the value of knowing good and evil.

Elder Bednar April 2013 Conference; "As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test."

If I understand correctly what your are teaching - your are teaching a false doctrine. It appears to me that you really do not understand the fall and and the atonement of Christ and that the fall corrupted all the spirits of man. You seem to think that despite the fall that the spirits of man remain clean and pure until corrupted by the physical essence of our mortality. This simply is not the case at all. It is because of the atonement of Jesus Christ the children's spirits are made clean and pure. It is not because of any choice in our pre-existance that the made pure clean spirits of children (through the atonement of Christ) inherit any glory - it is because of the atonement of Christ that their fallen (corrupted) spirits are made clean and pure.

See D&C 74:7

But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

If it were not for the atonement of Christ the spirits of children would remain forever in the awful corrupted state of the fall forever and would not obtain any kingdom of glory.

Our goal in this life is not to remain clean and pure as you are incorrectly teaching - but to become clean and pure through the atonement of Christ. To teach anything else - I believe is false doctrine.

The Traveler

Edited March 10, 2014 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

If I understand correctly what your are teaching - your are teaching a false doctrine. It appears to me that you really do not understand the fall and and the atonement of Christ and that the fall corrupted all the spirits of man. You seem to think that despite the fall that the spirits of man remain clean and pure until corrupted by the physical essence of our mortality. This simply is not the case at all. It is because of the atonement of Jesus Christ the children's spirits are made clean and pure. It is not because of any choice in our pre-existance that the made pure clean spirits of children (through the atonement of Christ) inherit any glory - it is because of the atonement of Christ that their fallen (corrupted) spirits are made clean and pure.

See D&C 74:7

If it were not for the atonement of Christ the spirits of children would remain forever in the awful corrupted state of the fall forever and would not obtain any kingdom of glory.

Our goal in this life is not to remain clean and pure as you are incorrectly teaching - but to become clean and pure through the atonement of Christ. To teach anything else - I believe is false doctrine.

The Traveler

The only word that differs between what you and I are saying is the word "made" and I would say "remain". It is because of the atonement of Christ that their fallen spirits remain clean and pure.

"Our goal", yes. Because you and I have lived past the age of 8.

Jesus Christ atonement protects children from the effects of the Fall. His atonement doesn't allow the effects of the Fall to affect the spirits of children. Otherwise, children would remain in the awful corrupted state of having the effects of the Fall.

Tell me at what point exactly are children corrupted?

Because of the atonement of Christ, they NEVER are corrupted. Moroni 8:12 " 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!"

It is a false doctrine to teach that little children were ever corrupted.

Moroni 8: " 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children."

I never said it wasn't through the atonement of Christ. It is through the atonement of Christ, their spirits remain clean and are immune from the effects of the Fall. They never experience the corrupting effects from the Fall. What Moroni said is the true doctrine.

Little children never put on the "natural man". Once we reach the age of accountability then the effects of the Fall are upon us, not before. Mosiah 3; " 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

21 And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent."

Little children are our example because they remain innocent, as their spirits remain innocent and without guile from the foundations of the World (meaning before this world even began).

Jesus Christ explains; " 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I think I would ere on the side of saying that children are not corrupted, we wouldn't want to offend any of these little ones by saying that they are corrupted.

And please don't think this is my teaching, this is the teaching in the scriptures and from the apostles. From an Apostle of the Lord; Bruce R. McConkie; "How and why are they saved? They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)"

Bruce R. McConkie says it pretty clearly; "Those that are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced." THEY NEVER EXPERIENCED A SPIRITUAL FALL! I think you need to think about what it means to spiritually fall, it means to be accountable for sin. We were not born with original sin. That is a false doctrine.

[Traveler]

The only word that differs between what you and I are saying is the word "made" and I would say "remain". It is because of the atonement of Christ that their fallen spirits remain clean and pure.

"Our goal", yes. Because you and I have lived past the age of 8.

Jesus Christ atonement protects children from the effects of the Fall. His atonement doesn't allow the effects of the Fall to affect the spirits of children. Otherwise, children would remain in the awful corrupted state of having the effects of the Fall.

Tell me at what point exactly are children corrupted?

Because of the atonement of Christ, they NEVER are corrupted. Moroni 8:12 " 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!"

It is a false doctrine to teach that little children were ever corrupted.

Moroni 8: " 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children."

I never said it wasn't through the atonement of Christ. It is through the atonement of Christ, their spirits remain clean and are immune from the effects of the Fall. They never experience the corrupting effects from the Fall. What Moroni said is the true doctrine.

Little children never put on the "natural man". Once we reach the age of accountability then the effects of the Fall are upon us, not before. Mosiah 3; " 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

21 And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent."

Little children are our example because they remain innocent, as their spirits remain innocent and without guile from the foundations of the World (meaning before this world even began).

Jesus Christ explains; " 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

I think I would ere on the side of saying that children are not corrupted, we wouldn't want to offend any of these little ones by saying that they are corrupted.

And please don't think this is my teaching, this is the teaching in the scriptures and from the apostles. From an Apostle of the Lord; Bruce R. McConkie; "How and why are they saved? They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)"

Bruce R. McConkie says it pretty clearly; "Those that are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced." THEY NEVER EXPERIENCED A SPIRITUAL FALL! I think you need to think about what it means to spiritually fall, it means to be accountable for sin. We were not born with original sin. That is a false doctrine.

I think you are wrong and teaching false doctrine. G-d is just and it would be a lie that a clean innocent spirit remain in the corrupt state of spiritual death. If a spirit is pure and not corrupt there would be no need for a redemption - nor would there be need for mercy for justice would claim a pure non corrupt spirit worthy of a kingdom of glory.

D&C 74 tells us that the spirit or children was changed by "sanctification" - the exact words are "being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ". The only way a spirit is sanctified is if it is in a previous state of not being sanctified. Every definition in every dictionary I can find that defines sanctified says, "transitive verb \-ˌfī\. : to make (something) holy."

Your insistence that the spirit needs no sanctification to be pure and innocent is false and a misinterpretation of scripture. In fact D&C 74 tells us precisely that this is how we are to understand scripture (or for that matter anything else you quote) concerning children - that they are sanctified (changed or made pure) through the atonement of Jesus Christ - and that without the atonement of Christ nothing can be made clean and pure to be in the presents of G-d - for no unclean thing can be in a kingdom of glory.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think you are wrong and teaching false doctrine. G-d is just and it would be a lie that a clean innocent spirit remain in the corrupt state of spiritual death. If a spirit is pure and not corrupt there would be no need for a redemption - nor would there be need for mercy for justice would claim a pure non corrupt spirit worthy of a kingdom of glory.

D&C 74 tells us that the spirit or children was changed by "sanctification" - the exact words are "being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ". The only way a spirit is sanctified is if it is in a previous state of not being sanctified. Every definition in every dictionary I can find that defines sanctified says, "transitive verb \-ˌfī\. : to make (something) holy."

Your insistence that the spirit needs no sanctification to be pure and innocent is false and a misinterpretation of scripture. In fact D&C 74 tells us precisely that this is how we are to understand scripture (or for that matter anything else you quote) concerning children - that they are sanctified (changed or made pure) through the atonement of Jesus Christ - and that without the atonement of Christ nothing can be made clean and pure to be in the presents of G-d - for no unclean thing can be in a kingdom of glory.

The Traveler

You are wrong in thinking that in order to be sanctified one has to be corrupt. I don't disagree with your interpretation of sanctified as it pertains to the physical body and children. I think your hang up is again you have a hard time separating the issue that we are dual beings. Children never experience a spiritual fall at the same time they receive a corrupted body. How is that? Because we are dual beings. But we are not our mortal body. This is a temporary state in which Jesus has overcome it's corrupt nature for everyone. As it pertains to children and all of us before the age of accountability, you have to separate the two aspects of our being, the physical and spiritual. Children are not spiritually tainted by the corrupt aspect of the physical body - see Article of Faith #2. And Jesus has overcome the physical corruption through the atonement for all of us. Therefore, the spirits of children are never corrupted. Their mortal body is but they are not spiritually. I think you are not willing to separate the dual nature of our being while here on Earth. Who we really are pertains to our spirit self, children of God as we are temporarily children of man. Some people in this life choose to make the corrupted self their hearts desire (i.e. - sin) and then their spirit is tainted with sin and they need to repent and be redeemed of their sin in order to return to God. That is not the case with children. The mortal body is not one's permanent self any more than one who has Down's syndrome will remain in that state forever. Jesus was asked, who sinned the blind man or his parents? What was Jesus answer? How can the blind man have a corrupt body when nobody sinned to make it that way?

We all have to pass through these steps, even Jesus. Was Jesus sanctified?

So you think Bruce R. McConkie's statement, " They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker." is false?

Do you think his statement; "Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. " is false?

[Traveler]

You are wrong in thinking that in order to be sanctified one has to be corrupt. I don't disagree with your interpretation of sanctified as it pertains to the physical body and children. I think your hang up is again you have a hard time separating the issue that we are dual beings. Children never experience a spiritual fall at the same time they receive a corrupted body. How is that? Because we are dual beings. But we are not our mortal body. This is a temporary state in which Jesus has overcome it's corrupt nature for everyone. As it pertains to children and all of us before the age of accountability, you have to separate the two aspects of our being, the physical and spiritual. Children are not spiritually tainted by the corrupt aspect of the physical body - see Article of Faith #2. And Jesus has overcome the physical corruption through the atonement for all of us. Therefore, the spirits of children are never corrupted. Their mortal body is but they are not spiritually. I think you are not willing to separate the dual nature of our being while here on Earth. Who we really are pertains to our spirit self, children of God as we are temporarily children of man. Some people in this life choose to make the corrupted self their hearts desire (i.e. - sin) and then their spirit is tainted with sin and they need to repent and be redeemed of their sin in order to return to God. That is not the case with children. The mortal body is not one's permanent self any more than one who has Down's syndrome will remain in that state forever. Jesus was asked, who sinned the blind man or his parents? What was Jesus answer? How can the blind man have a corrupt body when nobody sinned to make it that way?

Everyone that comes to earth for a mortal probation suffers spiritual death. From the LDS Bible Dictionary:

Two kinds of death are spoken of in the scriptures. One is the death of the body, which is caused by the separation of the body from the spirit; “The body without the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). The other is spiritual death, which is to die as pertaining to, or to be separated from, righteousness—to be alienated from the things of God (Alma 12:16, 32; 40:26). Both of these deaths were introduced into the world by the Fall of Adam.

I simply do not accept the notion that something “as pertaining to, or to be separated from, righteousness—to be alienated from the things of God” is not to some degree corrupt; despite your insistence that this is an adequate definition of innocent and pure. I also do not believe sanctification is complete until one is in the presents of G-d:

Again form the Bible dictionary for Death:

Then those who have willfully rebelled against the light and truth of the gospel will suffer again a spiritual death, which is called the second death (Rev. 20:14; Alma 12:16–18; Hel. 14:16–19; D&C 76:36–37).

Thus we learned that despite the atonement of Christ that some of the spirits made clean to be in the presents of G-d will die again (spiritual death meaning to me to be a form or type of spiritual corruption). This is a most interesting thought – perhaps in the resurrection the difference between a Celestial resurrection and a Terrestrial or Telestial resurrection is not physical but spiritual? -- Since in the resurrection all things will be physically restored to their proper and perfect frame.

We all have to pass through these steps, even Jesus. Was Jesus sanctified?

I do not believe Jesus was subject to the fall in that he did not suffer spiritual death and therefore was not corrupted needing santification.

So you think Bruce R. McConkie's statement, " They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker." is false?

Do you think his statement; "Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. " is false?

Yes I think his statement that they "never fall spiritually" is incorrect. I believe that they are subject to the fall and spiritual death being separated from the Father. I also believe that the fall does very much attach to them but that they are redeemed by the atonement of Christ - without which they would remain spiritually corruped -- or in other words spiritually dead.

Perhaps that is the point in which we differ - I believe to be spiritual dead is a spiritually corrupted state.

The Traveler