Is Eternal Marriage A Promise Or A Threat?

[CA Steve]

I believe I am more of your view. I see no reason why our tastes in food, entertainment, areas of learning, etc. will suddenly be identical just because we are perfect in love and compassion and knowledge and understanding (even if we assume that means full omnisciency.) I would not be the least bit surprised to find that there are still some that prefer to walk down a beach or mountain path on their own while others enjoy more a huge family reunion party with lots of music, food, fun activities and maybe even some dancing (chances are I will be in the former group).

I don't see the goal of perfection as movement from individuality to being basically clones of our Heavenly Parents, but rather the maximum development of that individuality.

PS: you mentioned being entirely different immortal beings...I don't see that as likely, while there will be progression, we won't trade in our core attributes that have been part of us always for others. If we can't recognise ourselves if we saw our perfected selves now, it will be the inability to understand perfection, not that we've changed so dramatically to be unrecognisable. Instead I see us as being more 'real', more intense versions of ourselves with the loss of the clutter and contamination that accumulates on us as mortals refined away.

I say entirely different beings because I do not believe a mortal mind capable of surviving immortality. We have this sandbox and tricycle view of what we are going to be doing in the next life, and like that child who wants to play in the sand box or ride the tricycle forever, we will find out that eternity is nothing like we imagined.

I suspect the being who is around a trillion years from now will little resemble who we are now. Just look how much we change is a short 50-90 years.

Edited December 28, 2013 by CA Steve

[Calm]

Just look how much we change is a short 50-90 years.

just curious, how old are you? It may have nothing to do with age, but as I see people I have known for all my life age, I see a lot less change and a great deal of consistency, more of just finding new and different ways of expressing ourselves. In fact, I have been known to refer to some of those who have reached a certain age in their life as becoming concentrated or crystallised versions of their younger selves as less options are available and habits of thinking become so entrenched, they seem to lose the ability to process new information (not everyone, but it seems like one must work hard to avoid that fate in my experience) and choose new ways of expression. Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Is that just wishful thinking, or could you fulfill a CFR?

 

 

 

CFR #2 - Joseph Smith to WW Phelps (as also referenced by BRM in "The Mortal Messiah (Book I, [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1979], pp. 32-33 (footnotes).

"Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;—it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known" ( Times and Seasons (5:758))

 

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

I heard that, too, from my kids. Oddly enough, they would complain about hearing the same thing about a topic such as the Word of Wisdom over and over again, when at most it was emphatically touched on two or three times per year, at most. Actually, that "same thing over and over again" thing is nothing more than an excuse that doesn't hold water. It only seems to be true -- in fact it is not true at all, and I will explain why.

The problem is this: not everyone is on the same page. They have to teach the basics every week, or else someone is going to be onboard with higher things without hearing enough of the basics, and there's going to be a meat before milk thing going on that will cause problems. But there is no real problem with a milk diet, because milk leads to meat, and they will get that, too, eventually.

Going to church every Sunday keeps you in the loop for service, for one thing, something everyone needs, and eventually you begin learning things that the teachers aren't teaching you -- you know, the things the Spirit teaches you over and above the basics you hear every week. Once you understand the basics, it is now your job to help others who have not yet learned them, to also get on board. That is also why those who teach classes in Church learn far more than they are teaching -- that is, if they are doing it right.

May I offer myself as an example? I have learned so many NEW things at church over the years that were never taught by instructors. Whenever I have self-studied this effect has increased. I would not consider myself a gospel scholar, but going to church every week teaches me more and more new stuff. Despite the fact that I hear the same lessons over and over.

I agree with you, forgot about the spiritual and service part, we need to be in the game, not on the sidelines!

[Stargazer]

I am curious as to why we should think that evil, pride, selfishness etc. etc. are all going away in our next existence? We know these things existed before we came here because a third of all God's children were cast out. If evil exited before and it certainly exists now, why do we assume it goes away in the next life? 

 

It also would be nice if people would stop accusing me of being in favor of evil, merely because I point out its existence.

 

And, in my opinion, most differences between people do not have to be defined as good or bad. I like steak, my wife doesn't. So what?

I suppose the part I don’t understand is how we retain our uniqueness and still attain perfection. I believe that those blemishes are what define us as distinct. Sometimes our defects are who we are, for good or for bad. At what point does doing away with all our human imperfections simply result in loss of individuality?

 

If we are to be of one mind, in the next life, I want it to be my mind.  

 

It appears that you are worried that Eternal Life will be like Nirvana is imagined by Westerners -- individuals absorbed into a group mind, all individuality erased.

 

Well, do you imagine that Jesus and the Father are One because they lack individuality, or are they independent beings perfectly sharing the same goals.

 

Those who do not achieve Exaltation will probably be those who cannot perfectly share the same goals as Father.  Whose goal, if I remember correctly, is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  If you are so concerned with yourself, then it stands to reason that this goal will elude you.  And as such, you should not inherit eternal life, because you won't know what to do with it.

 

And you also seem to look at this life, in which we only see through a glass, darkly, as a mirror image of the life to come, including, apparently, how we will conceive all things at that time.  We've been assured that it is not, yet some seem to be unable to part from this notion.

[Stargazer]

I say entirely different beings because I do not believe a mortal mind capable of surviving immortality. We have this sandbox and tricycle view of what we are going to be doing in the next life, and like that child who wants to play in the sand box or ride the tricycle forever, we will find out that eternity is nothing like we imagined.

I suspect the being who is around a trillion years from now will little resemble who we are now. Just look how much we change is a short 50-90 years.

 

Yes, exactly.  Those who are imagining the tricycle forever will definitely find out that it's nothing like we imagined.  We are not capable of comprehending it in this life, and thus everyone who says "But what if I don't like doing that?" is still on the tricycle.

 

And you have confused me with this.  I was getting the idea that you were on the tricycle yourself, when suddenly it appears you understand that the tricycle is not IT.  My apologies if I have misunderstood where you were going with things.

[Calm]

Applying to eternity past...I can see that though I do not believe that has to encorporate all that is past, but I don't see how that defines the whole of eternity even for "this system".

[tana]

A place of perfect perfection is perplexing.

Does anyone have a theory as to how one can experience reality, housed in a permanent physical body of flesh and bone, and realize ONLY the physical sensation of pleasure? How can there be hot and no cold? (or, warm, tepid, etc) How can there be a scale that starts at 'pleasurable sensation", and goes only up....to, more pleasurable sensation? Wouldn't less pleasurable then be considered.....pain?

[Calm]

Wouldn't less pleasurable then be considered.....pain?

as someone who experiences chronic pain, no.

Pain is not the absence of pleasure nor is it the same sensation only less so. It is most often a different sensation than pleasure though I am aware of some cases where overstimulation of pleasure may actually cause pain, such as a TENS machine set at a lower level may be relaxing but at higher burns or causes too much tension...but I suspect our mortal bodies' limits to experience sensation probably do not apply to a perfect body.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

What we are now is not what we will be then.

 

C.S. Lewis wrote:

 

"It is a serious thing, to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship..."  from The Weight of Glory.

 

Now, assuming Lewis is correct (which he is), just how could you not continue to love your wife/husband after the Lord is done with her/him?  You think the snoring, the squeezing of the toothpaste tube in the middle, and the way he (or she) leaves dirty socks on the floor is going to matter at that time?

 

Truly Paul wrote that we see through a glass, darkly.

 

Truly John wrote: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2

 

C.S. Lewis also wrote:

 

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas.  Nor is it a command to do the impossible.  He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command.  He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words.  If we let Him -- for we can prevent Him, if we choose -- He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfect (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.  The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for.  Nothing less.  He meant what He said." (Mere Christianity, p. 153.)

[Robert F. Smith]

CFR #2 - Joseph Smith to WW Phelps (as also referenced by BRM in "The Mortal Messiah (Book I, [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1979], pp. 32-33 (footnotes).

"Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;—it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known" ( Times and Seasons (5:758))

Thank you, Prof, and, as long as you are on that bent, consider this about Richard Dawkins on human or humanistic Gods:

 

After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield. He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a silicon destiny. And he’s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.

 

In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.

 

Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?

 

“Certainly,” Professor Dawkins replies. “It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures.”

 

He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he’s gone around a religious bend. “It’s very important to understand that these Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.”

 

Could they be immortal? The professor shrugs.

 

“Probably not.” He smiles and adds, “But I wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic about that.” 

 

--from Michael Powell, “ A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy (Profiles in Science: Richard Dawkins),” New York Times, Sept 19, 2011, online at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha210&adxnnlx=1317021805-9Rl0JoXlmDEA3RCjm0eQ8A (– at close of article)

 

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, but would those same ten women be happy being married to me? Don't answer that!

 

I have enough problem with just one woman.

 

Couldn't resist.

[thesometimesaint]

So as far as you know, it could be made out of thin air.

 

It could. But I've heard it from more than one reputable source. I just don't have that source at hand. 

[CA Steve]

 

Well, do you imagine that Jesus and the Father are One because they lack individuality, or are they independent beings perfectly sharing the same goals.

 

Besides distinctions in physical characteristics  and their relationship as father and son can you describe to me how they are different?  Can you imagine a set of circumstances where one would act differently than the other?

[thesometimesaint]

Besides distinctions in physical characteristics  and their relationship as father and son can you describe to me how they are different?  Can you imagine a set of circumstances where one would act differently than the other?

 

Not really. But Agency allows for it, even at the cost of being God.

[Calm]

It could. But I've heard it from more than one reputable source. I just don't have that source at hand.

I find it extremely improbable that someone would be able to measure this, that it would even be consistent from person to person...some wouldn't be happy with any, some might be happy with a majority....and that in a population of over 7 billion, there are only ten likely possibilities.

The odds of actually finding someone you could be happy with would be so low, very few would be in that state.

Add-on: the closest thing I could find to a statiscal study and the guy concludes thousands out there....not willing to spend more time on it.

http://www.eharmony.com/dating-advice/dating/is-there-one-perfect-person-for-me/#.Ur8lS2t5mSM

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

We're far more likely to marry the guy/gal down the street than we are to marry someone from across country. I find it comforting that I'm not so unique that only one would marry me, nor so common that anyone could.

[djones]

Well if you are doing it right then you will want to be with your spouse forever. My marriage isn't perfect and we have our ups and downs but my wife is my best friend and I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone else for eternity. And to think we'll both have our 20 year body's back and they'll be perfect! Can you say icing on the cake?

[Calm]

I wouldn't mind any age as long as it is perfect...age seems rather meaningless in a perfect body given that signs of ageing then will be merely cosmetic. Colour of hair for example is the result of ageing....but does that mean I will have the hair colour of childhood (towhead blonde) or adulthood (dark brown....now with silver highlights that glow in a certain light that my family think are cool and obviously indicate I am a wizard of some sort).

I suspect with perfect biology will come perfect awareness and self control so that perhaps we will be able to alter eye and hair and skin colour by desire. I am hoping it also means I will be able to add a few inches to my height or shrink my skull a bit so my head is in proportion to the rest of me. Somehow my dad got this huge skull and has passed it down to most of his children which means very few hats look go on me and that is the one item of clothing I would love to 'play dressup' with. My poor youngest brother looked like a bobble head doll until he hit puberty and grew to 6'2"... He still has a head on the large size along with all the males...but since they're over 6feet it just adds to their presence. I have the same size head but am only 5'7". On them, they just look impressive. On me if I am not careful, I look like a mushroom or something not quite earthly.

On a totally u related note save its about heads....my dad was in a horrible bus accident in his college years. Many died but he walked away with little obvious injury and not much memory of what happen. His head must have gotten a good wallop though because he has two bony lumps placed almost perfectly on his forehead. When ask how many wives our dad had, we would say "just one of course, but he has to keep trimming his horns as you can see if you look real close". Mainly just got strange looks, dad has a rather intimidating appearance (it has been known for babies to burst into tears if he looks their way and at first introduction grandkids huddle around their parent's legs, eventually he becomes something fun to climb on as one can get very high especially if he gives you a lift with one of his huge hands), he usually has a look of concentration on his face which heightens the hitman effect....anyway, I highly doubt one of our friends asked him if we were telling the truth since he never said anything.

Edited January 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I have enough problem with just one woman.

 

Couldn't resist.

Well, some of us would love to have that ... uhhhh ... problem!  Just sayin'!

[The Nehor]

I have enough problem with just one woman.

 

A muslim once told me that if you are going to have multiple wives have four.

 

If you have two they will either fight or gang up on you.

If you have three two gang up on the last one.

If you have four then alliances will shift over time but stay roughly equal and you will have peace.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, some of us would love to have that ... uhhhh ... problem!  Just sayin'!

 

The problem usually revolves around not in wanting a spouse, but in being the type of person a spouse would want.

[thesometimesaint]

A muslim once told me that if you are going to have multiple wives have four.

 

If you have two they will either fight or gang up on you.

If you have three two gang up on the last one.

If you have four then alliances will shift over time but stay roughly equal and you will have peace.

 

I guess making the best of a bad situation is OK, but I prefer not putting myself in bad situations to begin with. Besides what man really wants four mothers-in-law?

 

BTW I loved my mother-in-law and wish she was still on this side of the veil.

[Stone holm]

I guess making the best of a bad situation is OK, but I prefer not putting myself in bad situations to begin with. Besides what man really wants four mothers-in-law?

 

BTW I loved my mother-in-law and wish she was still on this side of the veil.

Nice save!

[mfbukowski]

 

Thank you, Prof, and, as long as you are on that bent, consider this about Richard Dawkins on human or humanistic Gods:

 

After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield. He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a silicon destiny. And he’s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.

 

In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.

 

Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?

 

“Certainly,” Professor Dawkins replies. “It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures.”

 

He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he’s gone around a religious bend. “It’s very important to understand that these Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.”

 

Could they be immortal? The professor shrugs.

 

“Probably not.” He smiles and adds, “But I wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic about that.” 

 

--from Michael Powell, “ A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy (Profiles in Science: Richard Dawkins),” New York Times, Sept 19, 2011, online at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha210&adxnnlx=1317021805-9Rl0JoXlmDEA3RCjm0eQ8A (– at close of article)

 

 

Sounds like both Dawkins and Rorty are closet Mormons.