Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/13/2025 at 8:59 PM, teddyaware said:

Excellent! The King Follett Discourse obliterates the “no individual personhood prior the first estate” narrative.

The funny thing about the KFD is that it isn't authoritative doctrine. And the only way that this obliterates the "no individual personhood prior to the first estate narrative" is if you read it with a certain pre-determined interpretative model (as well as taking the whole thing out of context) ....

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/13/2025 at 10:33 PM, the narrator said:

Unknown or incapable? Can something that cannot refract light have an "appearance"? What would it mean for it to "appear"?

Did you mean "reflect"?

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/14/2025 at 1:15 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

McGuire rejected the idea that I posited that we are all of the same species as God, thus gods, and we are here to prove whether we will live worthy to continue to grow in our godhood (gain more power and intelligence). 

I don't think I have rejected this idea at all. I think that this is a reasonable take on it. I think that we might agree on how open-ended this is - I lean very strongly towards universalism (but in this discussion that is small potatoes).

[bluebell]

On 11/15/2025 at 4:09 PM, The_Monk said:

I wrote about this here. Even had an email exchange with Hudson, who dismissed my argument. 
 

https://faithpromotingrumor.com/2007/08/08/playing-fast-and-loose/

Thanks for the link.  I thought the article was very clear and concise but also very kind and respectful.  I'm disappointed that the church published faulty scholarship on the topic.  We need to do better.

[Benjamin McGuire]

30 minutes ago, marineland said:

One could make the same claim for the church in the past - which went through its own correlation process in publications and General Conference talks.

In some contexts, yes. I think that we could discuss the question of blacks and the priesthood - as an example of this. These were what we might call correlated views. However, in this particular discussion, I would suggest that at least on the question of orthodoxy, these speculations were nipped in the bud. This view was popular in the Church because people like to have 'deep' discussions on things that allow for some degree of speculation. But it never rose to the level of orthodoxy at any point.

It is also worth pointing out that correlation - as a process in the LDS Church - had its infancy in 1908, and only reached its maturity around 1960. So only after the early 1960s do we understand that the publications of the Church had been fully vetted through the process we call correlation. You can see also that it's beginnings also match the historical discussion I provide above. You wouldn't get anything about this subject into authoritative sources at this point precisely because of its history - without a push from the First Presidency and potentially some sort of additional revelation.

[longview]

15 hours ago, the narrator said:

As I've been saying, you seem to be making it clear that you have just been repeating slogans your whole life without asking what sense or meaning those slogans have, and you're definitely not offering any evidence to the contrary.

Learning doctrine and studying the teachings of the church are NOT mindlessly "repeating slogans." Seeking evidence by searching thru the scriptures (as Jesus has counseled) and exercising our reasoning capacities and verifying truths in actual life experiences are what disciples are encouraged to do as much as possible.

15 hours ago, the narrator said:

Is this evidence that ChatGPT has a spirit?

This is why I am NOT interested in an extended dialogue with you. You seem to enjoy behaving in a bizarre manner. A Nehor wannabe?

15 hours ago, Calm said:

16 hours ago, longview said:

My contention is that NO amount of neurons can account for any creatures' self-awareness. The brain by necessity has to interface with a sentient spirit component.

So an expression of faith rather than you trying to prove anything here?

(this is my position, so I may be projecting)

An expression of my sincere reasoning capacity. One of the "proofs" is that "self-awareness" is "uncreated" meaning it has NO beginning (co-eternal with God) and will have NO ending. I posted to narrator that I believe there are at least four stages of existence. Therefore, "self-awareness" existed BEFORE the First Estate.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I would say an elephant.  Definitions are the foundation of complex discussions, but are too often ignored as if unnecessary because we act as if we can mind read each other or ‘of course, everyone understands the words like I do’ because of assuming that everyone responds to the same stimuli in the same way…which is false.

Are you implying that EVERY discussion has to be conducted using the exact same format, rules, premises, assumptions, etc? How to account for differences in perspectives, life experiences, training, preferences, maturity, education, etc?

[the narrator]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Did you mean "reflect"?

Yes. Though, I suppose most reflected light causing a non-monochrome appearance also involves refraction.

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, I generally let the Church determine what is official doctrine.

TBH, I find the discussion of what is "official doctrine" incredibly boring, as it really is just a simple matter of looking at official publications and such to determine (as you note). Hence, I'm more interested in these questions that you quoted me on but did not address:

Quote

Can you break down what you mean by "true doctrines of the LDS Church"? Are you referring to doctrines of the Church that are true (doctrines that accurately represent the actual state of things), or doctrines that are truly taught by the Church (doctrines that the Church officially teaches, regardless of whether or not they correctly represent the state of things)? Given your recognition that doctrines of the Church change and can contradict each other over time (at least I recall you recognizing this), I assume you mean the latter. If that is the case, is your concern primarily whether or not longview and others are accurately portraying official Church doctrine as it is taught today? If the you meant the former, then can you help me make sense of how you determine whether or not the doctrines are true?

 

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

Learning doctrine and studying the teachings of the church are NOT mindlessly "repeating slogans."

Correct. And I'm hoping to see that you are doing the former rather than the latter by demonstrating that you've given some thought to what the words in the slogans you are repeating.

 

14 minutes ago, longview said:

This is why I am NOT interested in an extended dialogue with you. You seem to enjoy behaving in a bizarre manner. A Nehor wannabe?

How is this bizarre? I'm simply repeating your inference that the appearance of intelligence and awareness implies the existence of a spirit.

 

16 minutes ago, longview said:

An expression of my sincere reasoning capacity. One of the "proofs" is that "self-awareness" is "uncreated" meaning it has NO beginning (co-eternal with God) and will have NO ending. I posted to narrator that I believe there are at least four stages of existence. Therefore, "self-awareness" existed BEFORE the First Estate.

So basically, you're just doing some gap theology, where anything that you cannot personally explain must then be explained by supernatural means. To be fair to you, that's pretty much a lot of religious claims going back to the beginning. (Genesis is basically a whole book of this.) The problem though is that over the millennia, and especially the past century, the number of gaps thought to infer deity has dwindled down to near zero and gets smaller each year. (And this dependency on a gap theology, I think, best explains the so-called "rise of the nones," as rising generations realize a deity is no longer needed to understand material reality.)

[the narrator]

On 11/14/2025 at 5:11 PM, Stargazer said:

We don't have an inkling of a vanishing of a thought about what kind of process is involved here.

Which is precisely why the "literal children of God" makes little sense.

[the narrator]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:15 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

McGuire rejected the idea that I posited that we are all of the same species as God

What do you mean by "same species as God"?

I know what it means to say that my poodles are the same species as a golden retriever, and today the idea of a "specie" is a biological concept inseparable from both genetics and evolution. Given that it's pretty much irrefutable that our specie, homo sapiens, is a result of billions of years of biological evolution, what do you mean to say that humans and God are the same specie? Or are you one of those persons that occasionally blows my mind that there are still people who reject human evolution in 2025?

Assuming you are one of those evolution deniers, what is meant by "species"? Would "model," "type," "design," or "configuration" also be applicable?

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

These mistaken interpretations are easy to uncover.  More subtle ones, the nuances, complex ideas…those too often go undiscovered unless one really makes an effort to define one’s words.

And it's not just about mistaken interpretations, but as longview has repeatedly shown, it's about whole theologies and ideas being built on slogans and words that themselves have never been made clear.

My chief example is all of the various Atonement theories (that typically range somewhere between thoughtless and repulsive) that seek to explain how Jesus's suffering/death (LDS scripture/leaders aren't even sure which) saves us from our "sins"--all done without any clarity or clear explanation of what a "sin" is such that it would require a violent and sadistic act to clear up.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

What do you mean by "same species as God"?

I know what it means to say that my poodles are the same species as a golden retriever, and today the idea of a "specie" is a biological concept inseparable from both genetics and evolution. Given that it's pretty much irrefutable that our specie, homo sapiens, is a result of billions of years of biological evolution, what do you mean to say that humans and God are the same specie? Or are you one of those persons that occasionally blows my mind that there are still people who reject human evolution in 2025?

Assuming you are one of those evolution deniers, what is meant by "species"? Would "model," "type," "design," or "configuration" also be applicable?

 I don't really care about the whole evolution debate...

  We human beings endowed with moral agency (the ability to choose to act) are the same <whatever you want to call it> as God- He is just incomprehensibly more advanced in all areas than we currently are. But He invites us to make the choices that will allow us to continue to advance.

[the narrator]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

(the ability to choose to act)

What do you mean by this? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

What do you mean by this? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

You very well know the difference between humans and any other creature.

I refuse to play this game.

[the narrator]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You very well know the difference between humans and any other creature.

I very well know lots of differences, but I'm trying to understand how you see the differences in relation to your appeal to an "ability to choose to act."

Again, what do you mean by this? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

( @Calm , this is another example of what I'm talking about. Endless theologizing built on a premise of an "ability to choose to act" but without any indication that much thought has gone into what sense that premise actually has.)

Edited November 18, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

@Calm

The above is what I was referring to in our former conversation from a few days ago concerning scholarly arrogance.

I can't take such pomposity seriously.

🤷🏻‍♂️

Normally I don’t appreciate it either.  I rather just hear what the credentials and actual training and exposure to others’ ideas have been without comparison to another’s as I can manage that on my own.  But when a poster being responding to is relying mostly on their own personal interpretations, meaning using their personal authority to back it (in essence ‘believe me because my knowledge is best’), it becomes appropriate imo to compare the source of each other’s personal authority status and how each was achieved, whether it comes from more than than just a person’s own thoughts…which can be interesting and inspiring (thinking of some of manol’s comments over the years) but are not that useful in determining official positions.  And I am not sure talking of the source of one’s personal authority is possible without having a high risk of coming across as arrogant…unless one includes some self deprecation, which more likely will defeat the purpose of sharing one’s background to show why one is confident in one’s understanding than inform without confusion.

Credentials and academic background do matter in a conversation that depends a great deal on posters’ familiarity and clear understanding with official material.

Credentials matter in scripture analysis because this training tends to mean greater and more systematic exposure to more materials and academic experience tends to mean greater opportunities for thorough critiques of one’s own ideas by others, showing where there are gaps in knowledge, leading to more efforts to gain greater broader, exposure and less likelihood that bias will cause assumptions to hide gaps in understanding.

Teddy’s learning process appears to be primarily reading scripture and thinking and talking about his own ideas with others.  He has probably read and continues to read quite a few church books, but hard to know how systematic and thorough his study has been because as far as I can tell it hasn’t been directed by anything but his personal interest….very much like my own study.  There have been several times Teddy’s points could have been strengthened by appeals to quotes by Church leaders I happened to be aware of that Teddy did not use, which suggests to me he feels his own commentary is more than sufficient…which works great when discussing what scripture means to oneself, but is limited in value when discussing use and abuse of official interpretations.

Personal study focused on the scriptures and our personal experience with it serves the most important function of scripture, imo, that of keeping our minds focused on God and hopefully preparing us to receive his spirit…but while it is great for helping us figure out what scripture means to us personally, it’s not that great in clarifying how scripture is used and interpreted by others, especially on an official level.  Limiting ourselves to this type of study makes it much more likely we continually reinforce our own ideas by inserting them into the material unlike many academic efforts that aim to understand scripture in the context that it was given or is presented historically overtime (development of beliefs) and current official positions.

Bottom line for me here is Ben has presented his arguments with less personal interpretation and more references to actual church statements, showing greater familiarity with actual church writings while Teddy supports his ideas with more with personal experience and unspoken/undefined assumptions of what is meant without demonstrating this is consistent with current church material.  Ben still hasn’t convinced me his analysis is completely valid, there are some clarifications he hasn’t dealt with yet and may not as not as the conversation is rather complex already.  

At the beginning of the conversation my own personal interpretation matched Teddy’s more and probably still does, the idea is definitely more appealing to me; but given Ben’s presentation here, I doubt I will be thinking it’s the Church mainstream position any more like I had thought it was.  It seems to me Ben has done pretty well at showing the Church’s doctrine focuses on our pre-existence as spirit children of God and says not much else in that topic.   But if someone, possibly even me if I decide to go searching more than I have, presents evidence that is more than personal interpretations or what they assume are traditional readings, but neglect showing the context of such readings that includes current official church writings that fill in the gap, I am still open to seeing Ben’s work as too incomplete as I do Teddy’s already at this point.

One of the issues with church doctrine is there isn’t much official disavowing of past interpretations, so it’s hard to know what is “current”.  Is something current if it’s the last time something official was published on that topic or does the lack of later discussion mean it’s no longer a valid position?

The Church’s process of updating doctrine seems more often removal of outdated interpretations, no longer seen as valid or supported by revelation from current manuals and absence from current talks without commentary and shifting of emphasis imo.  This leaves us at times wondering what past ideas are carried forward and which ones are to be left behind…because the Church also doesn’t use a systematic method of teaching, but typically focuses on what is seen as most helpful.  Volumes like Saints that go into much detail are rare.  The most systematic presentation of our doctrine is, in my experience, the Gospel Principles manual and that shows there isn’t much focus on details, rather it’s more interest in the overall picture and purpose of our existence, imo.  Much of the material we have is from people asking questions about what matters to them, so we have bits and pieces of details that fit into an overall relatively simple framework, but with a lot of gaps where we lack revealed knowledge.  And the gaps are more apparent now imo because the Church has become much more focused on keeping out the speculation and not mixing it in with actual doctrine.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I very well know lots of differences, but I'm trying to understand how you see the differences in relation to your appeal to an "ability to choose to act."

Again, what do you mean by this? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

What, though, does it mean to you to "choose to act" that distinguishes us (and God) from, say, my poodle refusing to come to me because she still wants to throw the frisbee more?

( @Calm , this is another example of what I'm talking about. Endless theologizing built on a premise of an "ability to choose to act" but without any indication that much thought has gone into what sense that premise actually has.)

If you don't know the difference between the human ability to make moral decisions and that of a dog, I honestly don't know how to help you.

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If you don't know the difference between the human ability to make moral decisions and that of a dog

You could help me by explaining how a dog's "ability to choose to act" inherently differs from a human's "ability to choose to act."

...Unless, of course, you don't know what that inherent difference is, which your refusal to answer makes me think is the case.

Let's simplify this for you though and take animals out of the equation: What do you mean by "ability to choose to act"? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

Edited November 18, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Sixth, it is tentatively suggested as a counter theory to the Manual theory, by the objectors quoted above, 'that the life of the parent is imparted to the offspring, and that while it is still a part of the same life or spirit of the parent, and as such did not have a beginning at the time of birth, yet as a separate individual it did have a beginning at the time of birth or conception.” This is thought to be a solution of spirit existence “both reasonable, and more in accordance with the apparent, plain meaning of many passages both of ancient and modern scripture.'"

Meaning we are co-eternal with God because he gives us a part of himself when he created/organized us?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In the same time frame, Elder James Talmage started to get involved in the discussion. In a Liahona article (7/16/1918), he described the four stages of man as a (1) a disembodied state, (2) an embodied state, (3) a disembodied state, and (4) an embodied state. That first state, he argued was when 
The Spirit lived as an organized intelligence before it became the embodied child of human parents".

So the organized intelligence here is not a preexisting entity solely of intelligence, but what we more commonly call God’s spirit children?

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Normally I don’t appreciate it either.  I rather just hear what the credentials and actual training and exposure to others’ ideas have been without comparison to another’s as I can manage that on my own.  But when a poster being responding to is relying mostly on their own personal interpretations, meaning using their personal authority to back it (in essence ‘believe me because my knowledge is best’), it becomes appropriate imo to compare the source of each other’s personal authority status and how each was achieved, whether it comes from more than than just a person’s own thoughts…which can be interesting and inspiring (thinking of some of manol’s comments over the years) but are not that useful in determining official positions.  And I am not sure talking of the source of one’s personal authority is possible without having a high risk of coming across as arrogant…unless one includes some self deprecation, which more likely will defeat the purpose of sharing one’s background to show why one is confident in one’s understanding than inform without confusion.

Credentials and academic background do matter in a conversation that depends a great deal on posters’ familiarity and clear understanding with official material.

Credentials matter in scripture analysis because this training tends to mean greater and more systematic exposure to more materials and academic experience tends to mean greater opportunities for thorough critiques of one’s own ideas by others, showing where there are gaps in knowledge, leading to more efforts to gain greater broader, exposure and less likelihood that bias will cause assumptions to hide gaps in understanding.

Teddy’s learning process appears to be primarily reading scripture and thinking and talking about his own ideas with others.  He has probably read and continues to read quite a few church books, but hard to know how systematic and thorough his study has been because as far as I can tell it hasn’t been directed by anything but his personal interest….very much like my own study.  There have been several times Teddy’s points could have been strengthened by appeals to quotes by Church leaders I happened to be aware of that Teddy did not use, which suggests to me he feels his own commentary is more than sufficient…which works great when discussing what scripture means to oneself, but is limited in value when discussing use and abuse of official interpretations.

Personal study focused on the scriptures and our personal experience with it serves the most important function of scripture, imo, that of keeping our minds focused on God and hopefully preparing us to receive his spirit…but while it is great for helping us figure out what scripture means to us personally, it’s not that great in clarifying how scripture is used and interpreted by others, especially on an official level.  Limiting ourselves to this type of study makes it much more likely we continually reinforce our own ideas by inserting them into the material unlike many academic efforts that aim to understand scripture in the context that it was given or is presented historically overtime (development of beliefs) and current official positions.

Bottom line for me here is Ben has presented his arguments with less personal interpretation and more references to actual church statements, showing greater familiarity with actual church writings while Teddy supports his ideas with more with personal experience and unspoken/undefined assumptions of what is meant without demonstrating this is consistent with current church material.  Ben still hasn’t convinced me his analysis is completely valid, there are some clarifications he hasn’t dealt with yet and may not as not as the conversation is rather complex already.  

At the beginning of the conversation my own personal interpretation matched Teddy’s more and probably still does, the idea is definitely more appealing to me; but given Ben’s presentation here, I doubt I will be thinking it’s the Church mainstream position any more like I had thought it was.  It seems to me Ben has done pretty well at showing the Church’s doctrine focuses on our pre-existence as spirit children of God and says not much else in that topic.   But if someone, possibly even me if I decide to go searching more than I have, presents evidence that is more than personal interpretations or what they assume are traditional readings, but neglect showing the context of such readings that includes current official church writings that fill in the gap, I am still open to seeing Ben’s work as too incomplete as I do Teddy’s already at this point.

One of the issues with church doctrine is there isn’t much official disavowing of past interpretations, so it’s hard to know what is “current”.  Is something current if it’s the last time something official was published on that topic or does the lack of later discussion mean it’s no longer a valid position?

The Church’s process of updating doctrine seems more often removal of outdated interpretations, no longer seen as valid or supported by revelation from current manuals and absence from current talks without commentary and shifting of emphasis imo.  This leaves us at times wondering what past ideas are carried forward and which ones are to be left behind…because the Church also doesn’t use a systematic method of teaching, but typically focuses on what is seen as most helpful.  Volumes like Saints that go into much detail are rare.  The most systematic presentation of our doctrine is, in my experience, the Gospel Principles manual and that shows there isn’t much focus on details, rather it’s more interest in the overall picture and purpose of our existence, imo.  Much of the material we have is from people asking questions about what matters to them, so we have bits and pieces of details that fit into an overall relatively simple framework, but with a lot of gaps where we lack revealed knowledge.  And the gaps are more apparent now imo because the Church has become much more focused on keeping out the speculation and not mixing it in with actual doctrine.

The issue isn't that he uses official materials, it is that he categorically denies the ideas of others because they are not expressly written in official materials that try their hardest to not get into deeper theological issues, even if the commenter uses quotes from past leaders that speak of the matter.

He leaves no room for good natured, and well thought out, speculation. He's like a dark academic rain cloud sometimes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You could help me by explaining how a dog's "ability to choose to act" inherently differs from a human's "ability to choose to act."

...Unless, of course, you don't know what that inherent difference is, which your refusal to answer makes me think is the case.

Let's simplify this for you though and take animals out of the equation: What do you mean by "ability to choose to act"? I know what it means to choose something as a kind of causal act by applying my will and present disposition and needs to a particular situation presenting more than one option, and I recognize that such is purely deterministic (otherwise it would just be a random decision without any "choosing" going on.)

Name another species that has built civilizations, established laws, unlocked the mysteries of science, etc...

We are different and that difference is our divine heritage.

[Benjamin McGuire]

33 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Can you break down what you mean by "true doctrines of the LDS Church"? Are you referring to doctrines of the Church that are true (doctrines that accurately represent the actual state of things), or doctrines that are truly taught by the Church (doctrines that the Church officially teaches, regardless of whether or not they correctly represent the state of things)? Given your recognition that doctrines of the Church change and can contradict each other over time (at least I recall you recognizing this), I assume you mean the latter. If that is the case, is your concern primarily whether or not longview and others are accurately portraying official Church doctrine as it is taught today? If the you meant the former, then can you help me make sense of how you determine whether or not the doctrines are true?

Ahhh. I see the question for what I should have read. My concern is really over whether or not they are accurately portraying official Church doctrine as it is taught today (and a little more than that, whether or not they are accurately portraying Church doctrine in their historical claims). But I can also address your second question.

Truth is something that is difficult to define. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have had so many people for so long arguing about it. Even I have made my small contributions (here and here for example), it just isn't a simple topic.

I think that I draw a distinction between Truth (with the capital T) and LDS doctrine. Doctrine is true to the extent that it represents something as it really is (this is your "the state of things"). But I think that it can also be true for us individually when it reflects our personal perception of "the state of things". I discuss this to some extent at that first link. For a "true and living Church" to exist, there has to be some wandering - as it moves from where it is towards that absolute truth (that it may never reach). Sometimes that truth comes in a little at a time, sometimes a lot. What Bruce R. McConkie said in 1978 relative to the priesthood ban being lifted was this: 

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or Preisdent George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that has now come.

So things are true in that absolute sense only to the extent that they represent what really is. At the same time, our ability to understand what really is is limited by our human condition and by our experience. We can, from time to time, receive more light and knowledge - and when we do, we have the opportunity to move towards that absolute truth (and we don't always move in straight lines).

I think that what we can take from Elder McConkie's statement is simply that the Church has light and knowledge - but we shouldn't assume that we won't get additional light and knowledge that will change or even reverse what we have believed in the past - with a different set of experiences and understanding that guided us.

In that first link of mine, I repurposed someone else's comment to apply to Mormonism:

Quote

Joseph Natoli describes it: "In the life of a postmodernist, the problem is not that we might wander and that we therefore would be faced with contesting views none of which can validate itself as The Truth. The problem is that we might elevate some narrative to Truth status and stop wandering. We might invest some observation . . . with full determinate status." Just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say.

At the same time, in a dicussion like this, we have to recognize that there is a doctrine that the Church presents - there is a truth that it offers (even if it isn't an absolute truth). The Church, and its leadership, remain the arbiters of the formal understanding of the Church. For ourselves, in our own individual search for truth, that comes through our personal search. In the second link, I use the narrative in the Book of Mormon - of two men who receive a vision of the tree of life (Nephi and Lehi) and their interactions with Laman and Lemuel. Here is that discussion (and its a bit long):

Quote

The narrative unit in which this vision occurs begins with Lehi’s having a dream and sharing it with his family.25 Following that dream, two responses are presented. One is the response of Nephi and the other comes from his brothers Laman and Lemuel. The first is given in this way:

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot. And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw. And the Spirit said unto me: … wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired. (1 Nephi 11:1–6)

Laman’s and Lemuel’s approach is portrayed in this way:

And it came to pass that I [Nephi] beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them. … I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations. And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for [Page 62]the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. (1 Nephi 15:2, 6–9)

The two approaches deal with discovering meaning in the vision. In the first potential response to the vision, Nephi goes to the source and asks to receive this vision for himself. Laman and Lemuel on the other hand take a more traditional approach and argue with each other over what the vision that their father had described meant. After the failure of the second approach, a third is offered, with Nephi (who has now seen the vision and can be considered its oracle) explaining it to his brothers. It is in his explanation that we see an admission of the unreliable narrator:

And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water. (1 Nephi 15:26–27)

True to the words of the Spirit, Nephi is shown the same thing that his father saw. But, as Nephi tells us with his pervasive language of looking and seeing, the vision is something that is experienced. Lehi missed some details of the vision that Nephi saw because he was paying attention elsewhere. Lehi then (apparently) could not answer Laman and Lemuel’s question about the river. What Nephi does not tell us explicitly is that while his mind was swallowed up looking at the river of filthy water, he inevitably missed some details that his father saw.

Seen in this way, this revelation by vision is a personal experience. Since we are all different people, our interactions will not conform to some universal standard — our individual experience of the vision will be different from everyone else’s. While we may have greater overlap with those who share our [Page 63]backgrounds and knowledge, the experience may be quite different when compared with those who don’t. The narrator can only provide us with the details that he is aware of. He cannot give us the details of his father’s vision that he missed. And he certainly cannot provide us with a reasonable telling of the vision as we might experience it.

The inclusion of this narrative of the vision within Nephi’s book, along with an interpretation, isn’t an invitation to stop. In fact, in following Nephi’s explanation, if we stop with his text, we have in fact become no better than Laman or Lemuel asking Nephi for meaning (or, since we really cannot ask a text anything, we are left to dispute one with another as to its meaning). Even if we look to authoritative sources for interpretations (including the interpretation provided by Nephi himself), we are left with something that is best used only if the “Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.”

The underlying message is that only in receiving the vision for ourselves can we approach the revelation of God. Only in our experience can we find greater understanding (even while we recognize that our own vision may be different and potentially even contradictory to what others have seen). Nephi cannot give us the vision; he can only reflect on its meaning and interpret it for us.

My view is that the search for truth is an inherently personal experience. And because we are all at different places - because we all necessary experience changes in light and knowledge in different ways - the way that we move towards that absolute truth will be different from the path that anyone else takes. If we were to experience a vision of the tree of life, it would be radically different from what Lehi and Nephi saw. Just as important, in the LDS lesson manual that covers that part of the Book of Mormon, we get these various Church leaders describing what the symbolic representations in the vision are supposed to mean. In a way, they become the authoritative sources of interpretation, and the members of the Church, in our classes, are turned into Laman and Lemuel - forced to experience this only through interpretation because "The Lord maketh no such thing known unto us." The real message of the text is not to become like Laman and Lemuel forced to rely on the interpretations of others, but to receive the vision for ourselves and to use that light and knowledge to move towards the truth - even if our experience doesn't quite match up with the experience of others. Visions are an interesting application of truth. They are sharable (even if the experience is not). And I don't think that they are limited to this sort of religious experience. When I first understood calculus, it was for me a visual experience. I think that there are places where scripture provides for us a glimpse of what happens when truth is provided and because the experience of certain kinds of truth is transcendent - there is a moment when it transcends our experience and our language, and so, cannot be re-expressed or shared. I see this in 3 Nephi 17:15 - "and the things which he prayed cannot be written". Some like to suggest there is something like the temple ceremony going on - that it was material that should not be written. I would suggest that it was something which language simply failed to express. In any case, I hope you get my point. For us to know something is true it requires a personal knowledge and experience. 

There is one more point to add - 

Too often we like to (because of the nature of how our minds work) find ways to make something true in our experience and our understanding. So much energy has been wasted on trying to explain the question from the OP in this thread - how Genesis 3:16 can be made to be true. There is so little effort spent on trying to get the new light and knowledge so that we can (to use McConkie's phrase) forget what Genesis 3:16 says.

Now having said all of that, the LDS Church has a need to define orthodoxy. It has a need to limit what is official doctrine. This doesn't mean that members can't believe a whole range of other things. It also doesn't mean that those other things can't be true (at least at that individual level). However, speculation (whether it ends of being true in any absolute sense or not) doesn't represent the doctrine of the Church. And part of the point of not endorsing a specific line of thinking in these kinds of areas is to allow members of the Church to disagree in their personal beliefs. We don't have to question McConkie's credentials as a member of the Church because he does not believe in an autonomous self-aware existence that precedes the spirit body of man, just as we don't have to question B.H. Roberts for his belief that it does. My understanding allows me to accept that both have found truth on their way to finding Truth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning we are co-eternal with God because he gives us a part of himself when he created/organized us?

Yeah, that was an early response to this who idea. This idea didn't become broadly accepted - but this was the idea favored by those who wanted to reject the notion of God the Father also having a father and so on going backwards in the connections that might exist.

There is some sense of this in what we do accept theologically in the Church - that is, that intelligence is the light of truth or the glory of God and what not. If God contains all light and truth, and our spirits are organized to contain intelligence - then eventually we will have the same intelligence (potentially) that God has. You can see how this line of thinking has played out at least partially in some of the ways that we teach about progression.