Spiritual DNA?

[zil]

Over the holidays, my aunt was trying to describe to me an idea which she said she developed while reading Alma 13, especially verses 3-12 (which speaks about foreordination, among other things).  Unfortunately, I don't think I fully understood what she was trying to say, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see what people think.

Her idea was that either (it was unclear to me which of these she believed, or whether it was both):

* One has spiritual DNA...

and/or

* One's mortal DNA is directly influenced by how one behaved in pre-mortality...

...such that spiritual gifts or attributes (e.g. exceeding faith), are coded into our DNA (perhaps not as a guarantee, but definitely as a possibility or even probability - again, it was unclear to me what she believed to be the extent of the influence of this "spiritual DNA").

Rather than write my thoughts now (lest I sway your opinion), I'd appreciate your thoughts.  (And if we happen to have a biologist in the room, I'd love to know your thoughts!)

[MrShorty]

I am convinced that some kind of spiritual inheritance from our heavenly parents exists. I have no ideas or speculations regarding the mechanism(s) behind that inheritance. I do not discount the possibility that some of that inheritance is encoded in our DNA/genes, but I do not see any evidence in my limited study of the science of genetics for unexplained spiritual inheritance. Genetics is complex enough, that it could be difficult to see. Some of genetics is "random", and perhaps our spiritual inheritance is buried deep in the ways that God may choose to "manipulate" that randomness. However, if God is manipulating genetic randomness, He is doing it in a way that preserves, to our mortal analysis, the random nature of those events.

 

I, personally, am not real fond of trying to ascribe too much "spiritual" inheritance to physical DNA and biological patterns of inheritance. It is certainly possible for God to use DNA to "give" us our spiritual inheritance, but I also think there could be many other possible mechanisms for it.

[Jane_Doe]

Biologist/ecologist here. 

 

 

Accepted idea: I do believe that there is spiritual "DNA", in that we are children of the Father, and we all have individual talents/gifts/inclinations.

 

Rejected ideas:

* The spiritual "DNA" relates to literal DNA in any way.  

* That pre-mortal actions result directly influence our situation in this life in any categorical way our mortal minds can understand.

*  That one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively).   

[Vort]

Rejected ideas:

* The spiritual "DNA" relates to literal DNA in any way.  

* That pre-mortal actions result directly influence our situation in this life in any categorical way our mortal minds can understand.

*  That one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively).   

 

On what basis do you reject any of these?

[Crypto]

If true, those who are born lowly were given the highest gift.

[Jane_Doe]

Biologist/ecologist here. 

 

 

Accepted idea: I do believe that there is spiritual "DNA", in that we are children of the Father, and we all have individual talents/gifts/inclinations.

 

Rejected ideas:

* The spiritual "DNA" relates to literal DNA in any way.  

* That pre-mortal actions result directly influence our situation in this life in any categorical way our mortal minds can understand.

*  That one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively).   

 

On what basis do you reject any of these?

 

The first due to lack of any evidence in that regard.  This is not to say it cannot to be revealed, but for now there is no evidence.

 

The second: God deals with us individually, not categorically.  And for mortal men to postalize that one group of people born X means they were Y pre-existence is an extremely dangerous road.

 

 Third: because agency and accountability are fundamental Gospel principles.  

[zil]

Jane,

 

It might help things if you could check my extremely high-level ideas of the purpose of DNA in a mortal (I haven't had a biology class on this since the 1980s, I think, so I could be all wrong or way out of date):

 

My understanding is that DNA is basically instructions on how to construct something from specific raw materials.

 

If that's accurate, it seems like DNA would only be useful for something that needs constructing (initial or on-going).

 

Am I close?

[zil]

All,

 

Thanks for your thoughts so far - they're sincerely appreciated.

 

Crypto, when you say "born lowly", do you mean with physical challenges (e.g. the sort that can be tied to DNA)?  (If so, then, yes, I've heard this idea before; if not, I'm not sure how it relates.)

 

MyShorty & Jane: my ideas are similar to yours (and I'll expound shortly), and I appreciate reading the variations between our thoughts.

 

If anyone else has thoughts, please chime in.

 

Thanks!  (My thoughts next, but they may have to change depending on Jane's grading of my science sentence. )

[SpiritDragon]

Over the holidays, my aunt was trying to describe to me an idea which she said she developed while reading Alma 13, especially verses 3-12 (which speaks about foreordination, among other things).  Unfortunately, I don't think I fully understood what she was trying to say, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see what people think.

Her idea was that either (it was unclear to me which of these she believed, or whether it was both):

* One has spiritual DNA...

and/or

* One's mortal DNA is directly influenced by how one behaved in pre-mortality...

...such that spiritual gifts or attributes (e.g. exceeding faith), are coded into our DNA (perhaps not as a guarantee, but definitely as a possibility or even probability - again, it was unclear to me what she believed to be the extent of the influence of this "spiritual DNA").

Rather than write my thoughts now (lest I sway your opinion), I'd appreciate your thoughts.  (And if we happen to have a biologist in the room, I'd love to know your thoughts!)

 

This second idea of one's dna being a result of pre-mortal decisions and valiance is not a new idea. Many have ascribed this reasoning to the priesthood ban on blacks. However this is covered in the church essay on blacks and the priesthood as not being an official doctrine.

[Vort]

On what basis do you reject any of these?

 

The first due to lack of any evidence in that regard.  This is not to say it cannot to be revealed, but for now there is no evidence.

 

But lack of evidence does not mean it's false, so why reject it? It seems possible to me, even a reasonable conjecture, that our physical DNA is linked in some manner to our spiritual inheritance. The very fact that we are human is proof that that conjecture is true in some respects.

 

The second: God deals with us individually, not categorically.  And for mortal men to postalize that one group of people born X means they were Y pre-existence is an extremely dangerous road.

 

This is simply not so. God does indeed deal with us categorically. This is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I feel quite sure that our premortal activities most certainly did and do influence our mortal lives in very real and profound ways, ways that we would immediately understand were they known to us. I agree that it is dangerous to take this idea and conclude, "Well, obviously Mr. X was born into thus-and-such situation because he was less valiant" or some nonsense like that. But that is a very, very far cry from making your claim that there can be no understandable connection between premortal actions and mortal situations.

 

Again, I do not see why you would reject the proposition just because you don't understand it very well.

 

Third: because agency and accountability are fundamental Gospel principles.  

 

That strikes me as a non sequitur, like saying "I don't believe in angels because fish have scales." We know by scripture that where much is given, much is required. Why should that not be as (or more) true of spiritual endowments as (or than) with other gifts? How does this suggest any violation at all of either agency or accountability?

[The Folk Prophet]

*  That one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively).   

 

Wait...you believe that one who is given talents has no more responsibility than one who doesn't have said talents? Am I misunderstanding?

[zil]

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

 

Decided to post my thoughts on my Aunt's theory in a separate post, cuz it's a puppy.

[Jane_Doe]

Jane,

 

It might help things if you could check my extremely high-level ideas of the purpose of DNA in a mortal (I haven't had a biology class on this since the 1980s, I think, so I could be all wrong or way out of date):

 

My understanding is that DNA is basically instructions on how to construct something from specific raw materials.

 

If that's accurate, it seems like DNA would only be useful for something that needs constructing (initial or on-going).

 

Am I close?

 

The pre-2000's conception of DNA was that essentially a book of building blocks: all we had to do was read it all left-to-right and we'd understand how and why everything was- because DNA determines everything.  

 

Our current understanding is MUCH more complicated.  Among other things:

1) Most DNA is not actually used in the organism, but is ignored (except for the evidence that it effects things even though it's not used)

2) DNA is not read "left-to-right", but rather is read in complicated manner including read between different chromosomes and "skipping" sections.

3)  DNA comes from more places than an organisms parents (this is uncommon in mammals, but extremely common in single cell organisms).

4)  Which DNA is activated can be influenced by the environment, and frequently is.  

[zil]

My initial reaction to my Aunt's idea was based on:

 

1) my memory from a biology class that DNA is used to construct an organism.  For example, my eye, hair, and skin colors are dictated by DNA.  My gender and height are dictated by DNA.  Embryo-me processes the encoding of my DNA to generate those cells needed to output what's in their plan (all that stuff that makes the physical me, me).  Conscious me gets no say in the matter.

 

2) the following from Gospel Principles, chapter 41: "All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32)."  ...which I had learned eons ago (couldn't remember where or when and had to use google to help me find it).

 

Now, given those two things, the idea of "spiritual DNA as the instructions for building a spirit" seems rather improbable to me (since it apparently isn't built as an embryo that grows into a mature organism, but starts out as an adult).  Further, per Joseph Smith, spirits are eternal in nature, so this seems to negate the need for continual reproduction of cells (to replace those that die off - unless you're mortal, why would your cells die?).  However, I fully acknowledge that I have no clue what the mechanics are for creating or maintaining a spirit being, so maybe there is something akin to DNA.  Personally, I suspect some other mechanism which works in some other way.  But that's just my gut feeling.

 

That leaves the altering of physical DNA to incorporate spiritual attributes of the kind described in Alma 13 (that part is crucial, because this piece was central to and the source of my Aunt's theory).  Those attributes include things like faith, repentance, obedience, good works, use of agency to choose good, etc. on the good side; and on the bad side, things like hardheartedness, blindness, rejecting the Spirit.

 

Now remember, I get no conscious say in at least some things we know DNA is responsible for (see list above).  To me, this means that I have no agency in relation to (at least those things dictated by) DNA (e.g. I cannot use my agency to alter my eye color).  Therefore, if my DNA were "encoded with faith", where is my agency to choose whether or not to be faithful?

 

That said, I believe that these things live in our intelligence.  That if in the pre-mortal world I developed great faith, or obedience, or whatever, it is as much a part of my spirit and intelligence before mortality as it is a part of me during mortality - that I don't remember how my spirit developed these things (what I did / thought) does not negate the chance that my spirit is still benefiting from pre-mortal mastery.  But I believe these are behaviors and choices, not instructions or even preferences in my DNA.

 

Further, we know that all of God's children have the option, through their agency, of becoming like him.  In order for this to happen, all of us must have the potential to do every good thing, to become perfect (otherwise, the option is a lie, and God doesn't lie).  Now if my DNA says I have exceeding faith, but that I'm a little low on charity; whereas someone else has some other combination of DNA-encoded spiritual attributes, how do we reconcile this DNA-encoding with our scripturally-documented potential to become like God - perfect in every attribute.

 

Given all that, I can't even see DNA as defining that I have the potential, if things work out right in mortality and I choose well, to have exceeding faith - because everyone would have to have that same genetic potential, thus making it non-unique to me, thus ruining the idea that it is unique to me because of my spiritual attributes developed pre-mortally.

 

Finally, as noted above, we really have no clue, so I suppose anything is possible, but neither idea seems rational to me.  On the other hand, memory, habit, skill, discipline, and all other behaviors and attributes developed through agency and living in the mind as a consequence of those things, seems perfectly rational, and compatible with the doctrines of the gospel as I understand them...

 

(If you made it this far, thank you!  Here's two thumbs up and a bunch of balloons for you: )

[Jane_Doe]

But lack of evidence does not mean it's false, so why reject it? It seems possible to me, even a reasonable conjecture, that our physical DNA is linked in some manner to our spiritual inheritance. The very fact that we are human is proof that that conjecture is true in some respects.

 

 

If you want to believe this, that's your right.   As nothing is revealed on the subject, my personal stance is non-belief.

 

I agree that it is dangerous to take this idea and conclude, "Well, obviously Mr. X was born into thus-and-such situation because he was less valiant" or some nonsense like that. 

 

This was the type of nonsense I was dismissing, particularly with the old myth of "blacks were less diligent in the pre-existence" in mind.  My statement was against such foolish categorical generalizations.  

 

I do believe that God places our birth very carefully, but such is a careful individual selection and not related to such foolish "understandings" of mortal men.

That strikes me as a non sequitur, like saying "I don't believe in angels because fish have scales." We know by scripture that where much is given, much is required. Why should that not be as (or more) true of spiritual endowments as (or than) with other gifts? How does this suggest any violation at all of either agency or accountability?

 

I'll touch on this in my response to TFP.

[zil]

Jane - thanks for sticking with me and sharing your expertise!

 

The pre-2000's conception of DNA was that essentially a book of building blocks: all we had to do was read it all left-to-right and we'd understand how and why everything was- because DNA determines everything.  

 

Our current understanding is MUCH more complicated.  Among other things:

1) Most DNA is not actually used in the organism, but is ignored (except for the evidence that it effects things even though it's not used)

2) DNA is not read "left-to-right", but rather is read in complicated manner including read between different chromosomes and "skipping" sections.

3)  DNA comes from more places than an organisms parents (this is uncommon in mammals, but extremely common in single cell organisms).

4)  Which DNA is activated can be influenced by the environment, and frequently is.  

 

See? I knew I was gonna have to tweak my answer.  Although, the closest I see in there to having agency-like control of my DNA is #4 - I choose the right environmental factors, and I can influence my DNA. (Of course, does this all happen during developmental stages rather than after maturity?  And still, unless I know specifics, I can't really choose it, so much as cause it...)

 

Still, this increases the probability, in my mind, that DNA might have something to do with it and we just don't understand what or how.  But until we can tie it together with pre-mortal agency without binding mortal-agency, I'm still inclined to believe the connection improbable.  I think it far more probable (to the point of almost certainty) that whatever dictated my appearance in pre-mortality was tied straight into my mortal DNA so that mortal-me would look mostly like pre-mortal-me.  I'm just not ready to accept the notion that the same is true for behaviors, preferences, learned skills, etc.

 

NOTE: I have no problem with the idea of inheriting things from Heavenly Parents like I did from my earthly parents - seems kinda obvious, I'm just not going to assert that it has to be DNA-ish, given all the above stuff I've posted.

[Jane_Doe]

Wait...you believe that one who is given talents has no more responsibility than one who doesn't have said talents? Am I misunderstanding?

 

You are misunderstanding.  

 

When I say one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively), I'm dismissing statements such as--

"Oh of course you can sit quietly through church, you're such a naturally calm person.  I have ADHD, so I'm not responsible for be reverent during passing of the sacrament."

"My 'genetics' made me gay, so I'm not responsible for keeping the Law of Chasity"

"Well, of course Christ said 'love everyone' but He was just naturally perfect and I'm not so I can hurt my brothers and it's ok."

 

God made of all, and we all have strength and weaknesses.  If you have a strength, it is your duty to cultivate it.  If you have a weakness, it's your job to go to God and have Him bless you.  A strength is NOT a reason to be prideful and a weakness is NOT an excuse not to try.  

[The Folk Prophet]

You are misunderstanding.  

 

When I say one's talents/gifts/inclinations somehow elevate responsibility for person acting one way or another (either positively or negatively), I'm dismissing statements such as--

"Oh of course you can sit quietly through church, you're such a naturally calm person.  I have ADHD, so I'm not responsible for be reverent during passing of the sacrament."

"My 'genetics' made me gay, so I'm not responsible for keeping the Law of Chasity"

"Well, of course Christ said 'love everyone' but He was just naturally perfect and I'm not so I can hurt my brothers and it's ok."

 

God made of all, and we all have strength and weaknesses.  If you have a strength, it is your duty to cultivate it.  If you have a weakness, it's your job to go to God and have Him bless you.  A strength is NOT a reason to be prideful and a weakness is NOT an excuse not to try.  

 

Right. I agree. However, I have two thoughts. 1. That weakness doesn't mean we need not try, but it also might well mean that we do not ascend quite as high as others in that particular arena. 2. There is a level where statements such as you have made become extreme enough to the point where the person is, indeed, unaccountable. (Of course that is only in theory and not a practical discussion for the great majority of us who are certainly accountable in spite of our weakness. )

 

As to point 1, it inclines me disagree with the overall premise initially proposed -- that there is no elevation or diminished of responsibility. The responsibility and accountability remain for all who are accountable. But we are all called to do what we can/cannot do, not what others can/cannot do.

Edited January 4, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Jane_Doe]

Thanks Zil, for this interesting thread and your thoughtful comments.

 

(Below is just me mischievously enjoying throwing a wrench in your previous understandings)

 

1) my memory from a biology class that DNA is used to construct an organism.  For example, my eye, hair, and skin colors are dictated by DNA.  My gender and height are dictated by DNA.  Embryo-me processes the encoding of my DNA to generate those cells needed to output what's in their plan (all that stuff that makes the physical me, me).  Conscious me gets no say in the matter.

 

 

Height: actually environment does influence this.  A lack of sunlight exposure (and the Vitamin D it causes) actually makes people shorter.

 

Hair: again, sunlight and environment effects this.  Example: my hair turns blond in the summer when I'm outside a lot, and then brown in the winter.

 

Gender: there are many organisms which actually switch genders!  Fish, corals, and trees all have known gender-swappers (including reproductive roles) based upon environment.  Example: in clownfish (like "Finding Nemo") when the alpha female dies, the alpha male turns into a female to take her place.   

[Anddenex]

A definition given in Biochemistry for DNA is, "DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms." Gospel doctrine appears to be clear that we are dual beings: spiritual and physical (natural and spiritual). 

 

Our DNA, the attributes I have inherited, organize my temporal form. Building block "X", the attributes I have inherited from my Father in heaven, organized my spirit.  The spirit is element. What building block "X" differentiated my spirit from that of a lion, tiger, or bear (oh my)? What would we call this building block?  Would spiritual DNA be an appropriate way to refer to this building block? I would think so, as it gives us something to refer to until we know what building block "X" is.

 

Procreation continues after this life, eternal lives, eternal increase. I inherited, spiritually first, the building blocks that organized my spirit from infancy to adulthood.  Joseph Fielding Smith said (sorry,   boring word), "Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the 'continuation of the seeds forever.' They will live in the family relationship." (Doctrines of Salvation, Book 2, pg. 287)

 

Furthermore, Joseph Fielding Smith proposed (successful non boring word :)), "To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences." I inherited some building block "X" from my heavenly parents that organized my spirit that would be able to receive all the Father hath, in comparison to other families of spirits (i.e. lion, tiger, monkey, etc...) that are not the offspring of our Heavenly Father.

 

As nothing is revealed pertaining to how exalted beings will have spiritual offspring, I would assume as we begin naturally we began spiritually, as all things were spiritual before they were natural and patterned after the spiritual.  It will be great when this is revealed.

 

My thoughts on this matter.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Anddenex

[zil]

Height: actually environment does influence this.  A lack of sunlight exposure (and the Vitamin D it causes) actually makes people shorter.

 

I guess I have to quit (entirely) blaming my mom's side of the family. :)

 

Hair: again, sunlight and environment effects this.  Example: my hair turns blond in the summer when I'm outside a lot, and then brown in the winter.

 

One summer in college, I did grounds keeping at a cemetery.  By the end of the summer I was blond and tan.  Two weeks later, it was all gone...

 

Gender: there are many organisms which actually switch genders!

 

Did you watch the X-Files?  There was an episode titled "Gender Bender" - with humans instead of fish... :)

 

Example: in clownfish (like "Finding Nemo") when the alpha female dies, the alpha male turns into a female to take her place.   

 

(Let's keep this our little secret - if some of the men on the forums got sight of that, they might have palpitations at the thought of becoming alpha female when their wife dies! )

[zil]

Thanks, Anddenex!

 

My primary objection to using the acronym "DNA" is simply that if all spirits are adult in form, it would imply they don't need that kind of "building instructions" - they need some other kind (though I could be wrong, I mean we're clearly created somehow, it's just that our spirits apparently don't go through embryo-childhood-maturity stages).  I prefer to call it "something else" or "building block X" or whatever.  (Also, in part, because my Aunt seemed to be suggesting there was DNA-style building going on, and even that our agency might could influence our DNA, and both of those triggered strong "no" reactions in me.)  But I understand the need to call it something.

 

Personally, I highly doubt spiritual procreation involves 9 months of gestation followed by labor, but I could be wrong.  (Though this doesn't jive with the whole "all spirits are in adult form" - unless someone left something out (and is perhaps giggling behind their hand right now).)

 

Meanwhile, here's a boring word for you: Auger.  And here's a non-boring word for you: Postum (I'm enjoying mine right now).

[Anddenex]

The notion brought up by your Aunt is intriguing, to say the least.  How was Jesus's mortal tabernacle influenced by his Father's building block X inheritance, or was it? 

 

I too would have a hard time adhering to this possibility as it reminds me of this scripture, "Did this man or his parents sin that he was born blind?" This appears to be a false application of our Spirit choices affecting our genetic material that cause some to be born blind, some to be born handicapped, or other mentally ill. 

 

My thoughts pertaining to spirits comes by way of Joseph Fielding Smith who mentioned something to this nature, but sadly I am unable to find quote -- take with a grain of salt.  My mind believes Joseph F. Smith's quote regarding what our Spirits are now, matured to adulthood, not that they always were...but that is just my mind seeking to understand how, if all adults (never children spirits), how then would they be offspring? 

 

Offspring are a result of male and female unity.  So, it will be enlightening once revealed, even in the next life.  :)

[zil]

My thoughts pertaining to spirits comes by way of Joseph Fielding Smith who mentioned something to this nature, but sadly I am unable to find quote -- take with a grain of salt.  My mind believes Joseph F. Smith's quote regarding what our Spirits are now, matured to adulthood, not that they always were...but that is just my mind seeking to understand how, if all adults (never children spirits), how then would they be offspring?

 

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/what-happens-after-we-die?lang=eng

"What do spirits look like?

People’s spirits had an adult form in premortal life and will have that same form in the spirit world, even if they die as infants or children."

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

"All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32)."

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-15?lang=eng

...the quote is too long.  Read the entire section titled "After the resurrection, a child’s body will grow to match the stature of the spirit."

 

Now maybe you're right and they're just not communicating clearly, and perhaps they mean that all of the pre-mortal spirits have been around so long that they've all matured, but that sure isn't what it sounds like to me.

 

Meanwhile, I'm sure once the veil is removed, we're all going to be laughing over some of our mortal stupidities. :)

[zil]

My thoughts pertaining to spirits comes by way of Joseph Fielding Smith who mentioned something to this nature, but sadly I am unable to find quote -- take with a grain of salt. 

 

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