Question 'bout Preexistance
Phabled1
in case it is not obvious, this is my first attempt at posting a
message here, so don't be too hard on me :-)
i am really confused abou the idea of preexistance, and the only lds
person i know isn't too good at explaining things, so could someone
here put it in layman terms for me?
Phabled1
Xan Du
"Phabled1" <naer...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:d9b6a646.02121...@posting.google.com...
The basics are this:
1) All matter contains two parts: spiritual and physical. The spiritual
matter is easily formed into shapes -- plants, animals, humans, planets,
stars, universes, etc. Then, physical matter is added to the physical
matter, which takes the shape of the spiritual template, and becomes the
complete, intended object.
2) All things in the Universe created by God were created spiritually
first, then physically. This includes people. Spirit children can think,
communicate and make decisions even though they don't have a physical body.
3) God's spiritual creations, collectively referred to as His children,
spent an unknown amount of time with God in His kingdom before the Earth
itself was created. During this time, the "Plan of Salvation" was laid
out -- a process by which God's spirit children could gain a mortal physical
body, spend a probationary period of time on the yet-to-be-created Earth,
and then return to God's kingdom to be resurrected into an immortal physical
body, and receive a degree of God's glory commensurate with their
performance during their probationary period on Earth.
4) God's spirit children have agency unto themselves to freely make
choices. This is called "Free Agency," and is a central tenet of the Plan
of Salvation. Lucifer, a spirit child of God (the second-eldest), decided
that Free Agency was not a good idea, and petitioned God to let him force
obedience upon God's other spirit children so that salvation of all of them
would be guaranteed. His reward for this responsibility would be that he
would receive all the glory for his part of it.
5) Christ, a spirit child of God (the eldest) championed His Father's
cause, and agreed to play the integral part of the Plan -- Savior and
Redeemer -- whereby all other spirit children of God who freely chose to
follow God's plan could be redeemed from sin (spiritual death) and mortality
(physical death). He expected no payment for his service, and told God that
the glory for His service would belong to the Father.
6) The competing ideals caused a "War in Heaven," which Lucifer lost. He
convinced 2/3rds of God's spiritual children to follow him, and all were
cast out of God's kingdom. Lucifer became Satan, and to this day exists to
spite God by tempting the righteous followers of God to sin.
7) In due course, Christ, while still in spiritual form, directed the
faithful 1/3rd of God's children to create the Earth -- first spirtually and
then physically -- under direction of God the Father.
8) There are still spirits waiting to receive a body. Everytime a human
child is born, another of God's faithful host has an opportunity to take the
next step of the Plan.
I'll let someone else look up the scriptures to support (most of) this. Or
you can look yourself at www.lds.org , which contains all four of the
"Standard Works" of LDS church. Most of the information I've presented will
be found in the "Doctrine and Covenants," which has numbered sections in
place of named books, or in the "Pearl of Great Price" under the book of
Abraham.
-Xan
Roy Stogner
> 6) The competing ideals caused a "War in Heaven," which Lucifer lost. He
> convinced 2/3rds of God's spiritual children to follow him, and all were
> cast out of God's kingdom. Lucifer became Satan, and to this day exists to
> spite God by tempting the righteous followers of God to sin.
>
> 7) In due course, Christ, while still in spiritual form, directed the
> faithful 1/3rd of God's children to create the Earth -- first spirtually and
> then physically -- under direction of God the Father.
Is this right? I thought it was supposed to be 1/3 rebellious, 2/3
faithful.
---
Roy Stogner
Xan Du
"Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:vlfM9.11868$KW2.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
I can never remember, should have checked. I can't even remember where to
find it.
-Xan
> ---
> Roy Stogner
Tempest
"And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil-for, behold,
the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me
thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;"
"Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:vlfM9.11868$KW2.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Mike W
> news:vlfM9.11868$KW2.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
I think you're right. I hope you're right. In the cosmic drift... I don't
need more devils to worry about :-)
Mike
Mike W
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:atrnrv$23rf3$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Phabled1" <naer...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d9b6a646.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > Howdy Google Groupies!
> > in case it is not obvious, this is my first attempt at posting a
> > message here, so don't be too hard on me :-)
> > i am really confused abou the idea of preexistance, and the only lds
> > person i know isn't too good at explaining things, so could someone
> > here put it in layman terms for me?
> >
> > Phabled1
> The basics are this:
>
> 1) All matter contains two parts: spiritual and physical. The spiritual
> matter is easily formed into shapes -- plants, animals, humans, planets,
> stars, universes, etc. Then, physical matter is added to the physical
> matter, which takes the shape of the spiritual template, and becomes the
> complete, intended object.
If I change this around will it really have any impact on the meaning?
1) All matter contains two parts: spiritual and physical. The spiritual
matter is easily formed into shapes -- plants, animals, humans, planets,
stars, universes, etc. Then, physical matter is added to the spiritual
matter, which takes the shape of the spiritual template, and becomes the
complete, intended object.
One correction, changed the third physical to spiritual.
Mike
Blain Nelson
> Howdy Google Groupies!
> in case it is not obvious, this is my first attempt at posting a
> message here, so don't be too hard on me :-)
Not hard, but a little silly.
> i am really confused abou the idea of preexistance, and the only lds
> person i know isn't too good at explaining things, so could someone
> here put it in layman terms for me?
>
1. You existed before you were born. We all did. Everybody who will
be born and even some who never will be all existed before.
2. For a <sarcasm> perfect understanding of what this was like, view
the film Saturday's Warrior.</sarcasm>
> Phabled1
Take care,
Blain
fmhlaw
1/3 rebellious, 1/3 faithful and vailant, 1/3 faithful but not valiant.
(proportions not exact.)
Chad Shaw
Now we can just call you Xan "The Sunday School Teacher" Du -- Great
explanation
Jack
In laymans terms. Mormons believe that in preexistence there was a
meeting to decide what to do with all of Gods kids. You see God had a
buttload of wives and therefore a buttload of kids. One of the kids,
named Satan, wanted to force the kids to be good. Another kid, named
Jesus, wanted to allow the kids to choose to be good or not. Some of
the kids liked Satan's idea and some like Jesus's idea. God decided
that the best way to settle it was to have a War. It was called 'The
War in Heaven'. Original, huh? The Jesus team won. The loser team led
by Satan was sent straight to hell on the express train. The winning
team got to come to earth and get bodies. Some members of the winning
team performed very well in the War in Heaven, like Joe Montana in
SuperBowl XXIII. Others performed more like Ryan Leaf and didn't
contribute much to the War even though they were on the winning team.
The guys that performed the best got to come down as white people. The
Ryan Leaf's of the War had to come down as negroes (weird since
negroes are better at sports). Anyway, the winning team, which is all
of us, got bodies which allows us to take some kind of test where we
don't know what the questions are let alone the answers. The questions
and answers to the test are revealed in the Temple and only available
to the .0015% of us that are Mormons. The remaining 99.9985% of Gods
children don't know the answers or questions to the test and will
therefore fail and not return to Him. Cool, huh?
TheJordan6
>explanation
I suppose that Xan could be called as a Sunday School teacher, if the bishop
would overlook him showing up hung over on Sunday mornings. :-)
Randy J.
Chad Shaw
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021219170006...@mb-ce.aol.com...
He wouldn't be the first!!!
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/19/2002 6:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <INsM9.22532$K5.18616@fe01>
Indeed, I have a niece who told me a couple of years ago that she and her
husband were asked to come in to church early one Sunday. They had celebrated
their anniversary the night before, and were in her words, "hung over." When
they got to church, the stake president called her husband to be the branch
president. He served in that for eight months, and resigned because the job
was destroying his life and marriage. He told the SP that he wouldn't resign
if the SP would give him a psychotherapist who could be on call 24/7 to handle
the problems of all the lunatics in the branch.
Randy J.
Phabled1
that there are so many people willing to answer stupid questions. I
hope you all will respond as nicely the next time I have a question,
and you know I will :-)
Merry Christmas
-phabled1
Xan Du
"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v032d7a...@news.supernews.com...
Oops. Thanx.
-Xan
>
> Mike
>
>
Xan Du
"fmhlaw" <fmh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E021AB2...@attbi.com...
Thanks. I don't ever remember hearing about the 1/3 valiant, 1/3 not
valiant. Is there a scriptural reference for this?
-Xan
Xan Du
"Chad Shaw" <Chs...@utah-inter.net> wrote in message
news:W_pM9.22432$K5.6316@fe01...
Thanks. I taught Course 16 for three years, and subbed as an early morning
Seminary teacher for 5 weeks.
-Xan
Xan Du
I resemble that remark.
-Xan
>
> Randy J.
Mike W
> Oops. Thanx.
Whew. I thought you might've done it on purpose. If so, that might've
taken some serious head-banging to figure it out.
Meanwhile, it reads like a wonderful allegory for the biologic (physical) vs
the quantum (spiritual). I'm just wondering if I'll live to see the quantum
become "physical", moving the spiritual on to ???.
Mike
--
Who's finally, just maybe, got Christmas prep behind him and is ready to
head off for the holidays.
Xan Du
My brain often does things I don't want it to after midnight.
> If so, that might've taken some serious head-banging to figure it out.
I think all of us here have done quite enough of that already.
> Meanwhile, it reads like a wonderful allegory for the biologic (physical)
vs
> the quantum (spiritual).
I'd love to read what God has to say about quantum physics. Curiously, He
never seems to share that kind of technical detail with his prophets.
> I'm just wondering if I'll live to see the quantum
> become "physical", moving the spiritual on to ???.
According to LDS scripture, you have to die to be able to see spiritual
matter.
Unless you're translated, that is.
-Xan
Mike W
> > > Oops. Thanx.
Shift work has me making those gaffes at all times of the day and night and
days off tend to get me into more hot water than I'd like... the language
spills with little heed to wisdom.
> > If so, that might've taken some serious head-banging to figure it out.
> I think all of us here have done quite enough of that already.
I like to think I know what "head-banging" is all about. I'm pretty sure I
don't. An apt comment last week by another groupie has made the point
abundantly clear.
> > Meanwhile, it reads like a wonderful allegory for the biologic
> > (physical) vs the quantum (spiritual).
> I'd love to read what God has to say about quantum physics. Curiously, He
> never seems to share that kind of technical detail with his prophets.
Maybe He's waiting 'til we all have at least half a clue as to what He's
talking about? I think I might have a .007 clue.
> > I'm just wondering if I'll live to see the quantum
> > become "physical", moving the spiritual on to ???.
> According to LDS scripture, you have to die to be able to see spiritual
> matter.
>
> Unless you're translated, that is.
Oh. So all we're left with is the Holy Ghost in this mortal realm? Oh
well, maybe He'll direct some brilliant thinker down the path towards the
"spiritual", the path towards Him. We'll laugh and take it in, imagining it
was always so simple, so logical and obvious. Forgetting the brilliant
thinker, the brilliant physicist, awaiting insight.
Mike
--
Snow and the season are what it's all about. It's stopped snowing. Is it
still the season?
Xan Du
Mix that with a few illicit chemicals, and you've got a real mess. You
should see the stuff I write. I'm understanding this prophet gig more and
more these days.
> > > If so, that might've taken some serious head-banging to figure it out.
>
> > I think all of us here have done quite enough of that already.
>
> I like to think I know what "head-banging" is all about.
Whether a person who says "we believe that . . . " is included in the group
that believes or not. Crazy as it sounds, this is an actual debate, right
here on this forum.
> I'm pretty sure I don't.
Five bucks says you do.
> An apt comment last week by another groupie has made the point
> abundantly clear.
Do tell.
> > > Meanwhile, it reads like a wonderful allegory for the biologic
> > > (physical) vs the quantum (spiritual).
>
> > I'd love to read what God has to say about quantum physics. Curiously,
He
> > never seems to share that kind of technical detail with his prophets.
>
> Maybe He's waiting 'til we all have at least half a clue as to what He's
> talking about?
Maybe there is no God?
> I think I might have a .007 clue.
There is a difference between complexity and nonsense, Mike. We've been
down this road before.
<banging head against desk>
Whew. I feel better now. :-)
> > > I'm just wondering if I'll live to see the quantum
> > > become "physical", moving the spiritual on to ???.
>
> > According to LDS scripture, you have to die to be able to see spiritual
> > matter.
> >
> > Unless you're translated, that is.
>
> Oh. So all we're left with is the Holy Ghost in this mortal realm?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and not seen. There's a lot of
room there to believe whatever the heck you want.
> Oh
> well, maybe He'll direct some brilliant thinker down the path towards the
> "spiritual", the path towards Him.
Maybe "He" is a figment of the imagination of billions of people who don't
want to admit that their lives don't have any eternal significance.
> We'll laugh and take it in, imagining it
> was always so simple, so logical and obvious. Forgetting the brilliant
> thinker, the brilliant physicist, awaiting insight.
Lost me there.
-Xan
dangerous1
There you go. It works every time.
--
Best,
Dangerous1
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
Perhaps the greatest service Jane Austen has rendered
this society is furnishing material for films that,
because they are set in the 19th century, cannot have a
soundtrack featuring The Four Tops, Creedence Clearwater
Revival and the Supremes.
Thank you, Jane Austen, wherever you are. Thank you.
-- Joe Queenan
Xan Du
"dangerous1" <dange...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
news:3E07BFDE...@dangerous1.com...
> Xan Du wrote:
>
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:v0ev3dk...@news.supernews.com...
> > > > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:au7rvj$537nu$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:v0eru74...@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:au7hr6$523dm$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:v032d7a...@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:atrnrv$23rf3$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > > > > > "Phabled1" <naer...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:d9b6a646.02121...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > > Maybe He's waiting 'til we all have at least half a clue as to what
He's
> > > talking about?
> >
> > Maybe there is no God?
> >
> > > I think I might have a .007 clue.
> >
> > There is a difference between complexity and nonsense, Mike. We've been
> > down this road before.
> >
> > <banging head against desk>
> >
> > Whew. I feel better now. :-)
> >
>
> There you go. It works every time.
If I could just do that without the side effect of ringing ears, I think I'd
really be on to something.
-Xan
Mike W
> > > > > Oops. Thanx.
That's a good one. Huh? Reminds me of how to draw lines between doctrine,
canon and scripture.
> > I'm pretty sure I don't.
> Five bucks says you do.
LOL.
> > An apt comment last week by another groupie has made the point
> > abundantly clear.
> Do tell.
Check your email.
> > > > Meanwhile, it reads like a wonderful allegory for the biologic
> > > > (physical) vs the quantum (spiritual).
> > > I'd love to read what God has to say about quantum physics.
> > > Curiously, He never seems to share that kind of technical
> > > detail with his prophets.
> > Maybe He's waiting 'til we all have at least half a clue as to what
> > He's talking about?
> Maybe there is no God?
I was just starting to wax philosophic and you put the kibosh on it.
Philosophy is, right? That's where we have to start with the Him I mean.
> > I think I might have a .007 clue.
> There is a difference between complexity and nonsense, Mike. We've been
> down this road before.
>
> <banging head against desk>
>
> Whew. I feel better now. :-)
LOL. As I was about to say. It's not always easy discerning the complexity
from the nonsense. Phlogiston, miasma, "atom" the indivisible particle,
lightspeed the top speed... it never stops. Time to find the real light,
time to find Him. Time to be philosophical about it all.
> > > > I'm just wondering if I'll live to see the quantum
> > > > become "physical", moving the spiritual on to ???.
> > > According to LDS scripture, you have to die to be able to see
> > > spiritual matter.
> > >
> > > Unless you're translated, that is.
> > Oh. So all we're left with is the Holy Ghost in this mortal realm?
> Faith is the substance of things hoped for and not seen. There's a lot of
> room there to believe whatever the heck you want.
Yep.
> > Oh well, maybe He'll direct some brilliant thinker down the path
> > towards the "spiritual", the path towards Him.
> Maybe "He" is a figment of the imagination of billions of people who don't
> want to admit that their lives don't have any eternal significance.
Ouch. A bit of the nihilism there? We all go on pretending our lives mean
something to those that are our friends. Why not extrapolate?
> > We'll laugh and take it in, imagining it was always so simple, so
> > logical and obvious. Forgetting the brilliant thinker, the brilliant
> > physicist, awaiting insight.
> Lost me there.
The scientist looks at facts puts them togetther, stray facts coming
together to make a whole. The whole he presents to the world and we all
laugh, "how true", we cry, "how logical and rational". The Windows
presentation you're probably looking at is an extreme example of all the
little facts coming together to make a whole. A whole GUI, a whole graphic
user interface. There... some process... some cold process for you.
Now imagine, why someone thought that fact X and fact Y might work together.
The whole philosophy I was trying to simply put, was a reason why that
someone thought fact X might fit with fact Y. Nothing to do with the
process, everything to do with the reasons for the process. That's Him,
the reason there's a process. That's Him, the reason there's an
idea. That's him, the driver behind an intuitive thought.
Of course, there's nothing reasonable about those reasons. "Reason" is a
nutty word as I bang my head trying to think of another.
You mentioned that "He" might be a figment of the imaginations of billions
of people. I'm less and less troubled by that these days. So, I wonder,
what is an "imagination" anyways? Pretty inexplicable, as inexplicable as
He is.
Mike