Shortly after Dolly the sheep was born, there was a rush by many universities and other scientific institutions to see who could be the first to clone various other animals. My own place of employment, I was working at a college at the time, proudly led the way in being the first to clone a cow. Of course, Molly the Cloned Cow quickly became a favorite topic on both campus and the surrounding community. Cloning was also a subject that made the religious, such as myself nervous, and I remember discussing with a fellow Mormon on his conspiracy theory on how it was all a scam. Neither of us worked anywhere near the science departments of the college, but we were sure there had to be some funny business going on. Our reason, we could not understand how a spirit body could be on hand, to perfectly fit Molly the cows physical body, since Mormon scripture clearly told us that our physical bodies, and the bodies of all living things were made first in the spirit, in the pre-existence millennium ago, and that our current bodies were just reflections on the spiritual. Our current problem was wondering just how many Molly the cows, or Dolly the sheep did god have up there, ready to be sent down, every time the scientist made a clone.

This isn't the only problem with genetics and the Mormon plan of salvation, but it is a good illustration of it. As I have come to learn more and more about genetics, it has become evident that so much of the condition of our bodies, including appearance, as well as things like personality, are determined not by the development of our spiritual body, but by our physical. By so much, I mean every detail of our body and mind, not developed by our environment, is developed by our genes. Those parts about us that are not the result of DNA, can clearly be shown to be part of things like memes and nutrition. So what does this mean for our spiritual bodies?

It means, that since we can show where our genetics come from, our parental lineage, that a spiritual body, in the very unlikely event that it did exist inside our bodies, would either have to get it's form from the same genetic process that started when our parents flung their genetic material at each other, or bore no resemblance in the preexistence to the condition that it is in now. There is a third possibility, that it still bears no resemblance to our current state, physical or mental, meaning that it is at best, an unrelated prisoner trapped in our body. Now this poor parasite, that God put into our bodies, is totally dependent on how our genes, and its associated memes (the collection of ideas one learns from their environment, that forms the basis of their personality) responds to certain stimuli in order to get back into heaven. Since god is supposed to be fair and just, you can see how this would be a bit unfair.

Well said.

I have pondered many other probs with the POS over the years.

Those pesky scientists keep unraveling all religions...

POS = Plan of Salvation

or

POS = Piece of Sh!t

I guess they're both the same, really.

;)

Well put.
Mormons spend much time getting the names of ancestors and too little learning about them. Fortunately, our family histories were not merely listing of names, but information about what they did and their talents and illnesses, etc. I know of certain traits passed on for generations, some going back several hundred years. Clearly, we are a product of our genes and all definitely affects our very being.

I remember being told in church that when it comes to people who are born handicapped; Downs Syndrome, Cojoined Twins, deaf, color blind, related parents, etc. that they knew in the PreExistence what kind of body they would be getting. That they fully understood what their test might entail, but the chance to get a body made it worth the risk.

Oh- and the promise that in the Resurrection, their body would be perfect. Of course, all you need to do to earn a body is breathe your first breath at birth to fulfill your part. Die two minutes later and you have escaped the whole experience. These options are reserved for those who have proved themselves sufficiently in the PreMortal life.

If Elohim had preexisting spirits standing by for every person who would ever be born, that means he knew, and sanctioned, every out-of-wedlock birth. It means it was foreordained that Johnny would knock up Suzy, Billy would rape Betty, and so on. There was nothing those people could have done about it. It had been laid forth from the creation of the universe.

I've been fascinated with studies done on identical twins, separated at birth. When they are reunited as adults, so many of them have similar interests, personality traits, and even choose similar styles of clothing.

Maybe God ran out of spirit molds in the preexistence and resorted to multiple births.

Henri Bemis stated: " . . . . .There is no Mormon doctrine that states that the spirit and body are physically correlated such that the DNA of the body somehow dictates the properties of the spirit, or that the properties of the spirit somehow dictate the DNA of the body. (However, there is some suggestion that the appearance of the spirit "looks like" the appearance of the body, suggesting some type of correspondence.)"
(end quote).

It's hard to pin down LDS doctrine, even if it's stated on their website and their scriptures. And if it doesn't make sense, they'll try to weasel out of it. But it's there, in print.

According to LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/spirit

"The spirit body looks like the physical body (1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15–16; D&C 77:2; 129)."

The key scripture in that set is D&C 77:2, which says " . . . that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created."

If the spirit always looks like the body, then one must dictate the other. Matching appearance of the spirit and body couldn't happen by happy coincidence for every person that has ever lived. (And now, I'm suppressing my disbelief that there even is a "spirit", because I have seen no proof that such a thing exists, separate from the body).

Personally, I'm going to go with the proven fact that DNA dictates physical characteristics. So, as the original poster stated, we have a problem. How does God know what every spirit body should LOOK like, if the person has not been physically conceived yet? What if a spirit's designated parents, John and Mary, decide not to have children? What if they have too many kids? Where do the extra spirits come from, and does God have to alter the appearance of someone ELSE'S spirit child, or change the DNA to make them match their new family? What if Mary dies in an accident and never bears the spirit children who were meant to come to her? What if John marries Zelda who is short, has red hair and is has hemophilia, instead of Mary, who is blond and 6 feet tall? Won't his children look different than they would have?

The only way to make this whole idea of preexistence, with pre-created spirits of unborn children work, we would have to assume that there is no free will, or that God knows everything that will EVER happen in every life. Which runs counter to the idea of free will. But so does the idea of the atonement, where Jesus suffers for sins that haven't been committed yet.

It all comes back to magical thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 04:11PM by imaworkinonit.

I agree that correlations of appearance suggest some mechanism that establishes the correlation. Since, in this case, as you rightly say, "one must dictate the other," and since presumably the physical body does not dictate what the spirit looks like, but the other way around, one would expect that the mechanism is instantiated by the spirit affecting the body. But since we already know what accounts for the appearance of the body, it would seem that the spirit would have to influence the corresponding physical DNA. But DNA coding is clearly an entirely physical mechanism, fully explanable in physical terms. I consider this a huge problem for spirit body "appearance" correlations.

The question then, is whether this problem extends to other human characteristics. Appearance traits are one thing, personality traits and especially freewill are another. Can Mormonism claim that an independent spirit plays a role in personality and freewill, over and above physcial genetic mechanisms? First, personality traits are more difficult to trace to DNA and related biological mechanisms, although certainly it has been done to some extent. Personally, I think there is some "space" here to exploit, particularly when freewill is added to the mix. Physical mechanisms imply determinism, not freewill, which is why freewill is so often denied. I think there is substantial positive evidence for freewill, in addition to our strong intuitions. If so, that evidence represents data to be explained beyond mere biological mechanisms. For Mormonism, and other religions, the spiritual body forms the basis for such explanations. Of course, we still need an explanation as to what a spirit is, and how spiritual mechanisms work, simply because we have no understanding as to how any sort of dynamics occur without an underlying mechanism. I have yet to read any suggestion as to how that might work.

of the Mormon preexistence claims.

You wrote: "Since, in this case, as you rightly say, "one must dictate the other," and since presumably the physical body does not dictate what the spirit looks like, but the other way around, one would expect that the mechanism is instantiated by the spirit affecting the body."

Based on what? We can prove that DNA gives every creature it's physical characteristics. Any presumption you can make about the supposed spirit's influence on physical appearance is pure speculation. It reminds me of apologists: you start with an assumption (We all have spirits and they look like our physical body) and then come up with an explanation, with zero evidence, to make that work in your mind. Which is fine for you to believe, but it doesn't hold up to debate.

I think the place to start is to back up and prove that there is a spirit at all. If we can find a spirit, then we can compare it to it's human counterpart.

As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism's claim that our spirits were created before the foundation of the world deserve about as much consideration as their other claims, like the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon, or angels with flaming swords.

Edit: On second reading, perhaps you were admitting that the claims about the appearance of the spirit matching the body just don't work. However, I find the whole discussion mind-numbing and Nibleyesque.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2014 01:32PM by imaworkinonit.

imaworkinonit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [It seems you are trying hard to make sense] of the Mormon preexistence claims.

COMMENT: Yes. I find that trying hard to understand and make sense of an opposing view sharpens my own view and focus. It doesn't mean that I am sympathetic toward such views. Much of the criticism I receive on the Board is based upon an assumption that my attempts to understand opposing viewpoints suggests a sympathy for such viewpoints.
>
> You wrote: "Since, in this case, as you rightly
> say, "one must dictate the other," and since
> presumably the physical body does not dictate what
> the spirit looks like, but the other way around,
> one would expect that the mechanism is
> instantiated by the spirit affecting the body."
>
> Based on what?

COMMENT: Based upon Mormon doctrine. In Mormon doctrine the spirit existence precedes the physcial body. Thus, under Mormonism, the visual appearance of the spirit must dictate in some way the physcial appearance of the body. Which, as I said, is a problem.

> We can prove that DNA gives every
> creature it's physical characteristics. Any
> presumption you can make about the supposed
> spirit's influence on physical appearance is pure
> speculation.

COMMENT: It is worse than that, which is my point. Because (1) the physcial mechanism for bodily appearances is well-established, and (2) correlated appearances requires some mechanism; and (3) there does not appear to be ANY spiritual mechanism, the conclusion is that there is no basis upon which to make such speculation.

> It reminds me of apologists: you
> start with an assumption (We all have spirits and
> they look like our physical body) and then come up
> with an explanation, with zero evidence, to make
> that work in your mind. Which is fine for you to
> believe, but it doesn't hold up to debate.

COMMENT: It is like reverse apologetics. You take the opposing point of view (an apologetic stance) and determine whether given that stance, you can make it sensible, and if so, to what extent.
>
> I think the place to start is to back up and prove
> that there is a spirit at all. If we can find a
> spirit, then we can compare it to it's human
> counterpart.

COMMENT: What you are doing here is addressing the issue by invoking a burden of proof. That is fine, but it really doesn't get the argument very far, because Mormons (and other theists) form their beliefs based upon what is still possible, based upon the evidence, not what they can prove. So, the better method is to take what they take as given (their apologetics) and show that it substantively does not work. But you have to be fair in this process, and be willing to acknowledge where their apologetics works on some level.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism's claim that
> our spirits were created before the foundation of
> the world deserve about as much consideration as
> their other claims, like the Book of Abraham or
> the Book of Mormon, or angels with flaming
> swords.

COMMENT: THis is your passion talking. In realy all of these are different claims. Mormonisms problems with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are based upon contrary evidence, pure and simple. THe claims about spirits are metaphysical, and require a different level of assessment.
>
> Edit: On second reading, perhaps you were
> admitting that the claims about the appearance of
> the spirit matching the body just don't work.
> However, I find the whole discussion mind-numbing
> and Nibleyesque.

COMMENT: Yes, Exactly. But if one is going to set-aside the "mind-numbing" and "Nibleyesque" features of Mormonism, and address the issues squarely, one should do it fairly and deliberately, and without hand-waving dismissal, or bad arguments. As presented, the OP did not work. However, further discussion revealed one aspect (i.e. genetic appearances) where the OP seems to show a serious flaw in Mormon metaphysics; if they insist that the spirit informs the appearance of the physical body.

I've thought you were an apologist, but I guess you are trying to think like a believer, so you could address things in a way they might accept.

That said, I don't really think you can often get a believer to take things as far as thinking about the mechanism that causes the spirit and the body to have the same appearance. I think that when you get to a conflict or snag between known scientific facts and their belief system, most believers revert to "putting it on the shelf", or "we'll understand in the next life". In other words cognitive dissonance is managed quickly by dismissing the problem ideas from attention.

Once someone is willing to actually pursue a question as far as it can be pursued, the shelf quickly collapses.

Let's take a closer look at this.

First, let's be more specific about what cloning is. Cloning is essentially taking the nucleus of a somatic cell from one animal (A), implanting it into the nucleus of another egg cell, where the nucleus has been removed, and then emplanting the egg into a surrogate "mother" (B) and generating a "clone" of (A), call it (C). This means that (C) has exactly the same DNA as (A), subject to mutations and epigenetic influences.

FCD: "Our reason, we could not understand how a spirit body could be on hand, to perfectly fit Molly the cows physical body, since Mormon scripture clearly told us that our physical bodies, and the bodies of all living things were made first in the spirit, in the pre-existence millennium ago, and that our current bodies were just reflections on the spiritual. Our current problem was wondering just how many Molly the cows, or Dolly the sheep did god have up there, ready to be sent down, every time the scientist made a clone."

COMMENT: This mistates Mormon doctrine. Essentially, Mormonism states that independent spirit entities, which formed the basis of personal identity, pre-existed in the spirit world. These spirits then "entered" physical bodies, creating souls. Note that the identity of the person (or animal) remains the spirit of the person, not the body, which, according to Mormonism survives death. There is no Mormon doctrine that states that the spirit and body are physically correlated such that the DNA of the body somehow dictates the properties of the spirit, or that the properties of the spirit somehow dictate the DNA of the body. (However, there is some suggestion that the appearance of the spirit "looks like" the appearance of the body, suggesting some type of correspondence.)

Thus, according to Mormon doctrine, Molly (C), might well have a DNA structure identical with (A), but still have an independent spirit body, just as identical twins would have identical DNA but separate spirit entities. Not also that both would probably have epigenetic characteristics independent of their DNA coding.

FCD: "As I have come to learn more and more about genetics, it has become evident that so much of the condition of our bodies, including appearance, as well as things like personality, are determined not by the development of our spiritual body, but by our physical."

COMMENT: Fair point, which makes one wonder what role is left for the spirit to identify who we are. However, it is still logically possible that our underlying consciousness represents our individual identities, including, presumably, some personality traits, but then are further influenced by biological factors, i.e. our genetic makeup coupled with environmental influences.

FCP: "By so much, I mean every detail of our body and mind, not developed by our environment, is developed by our genes. Those parts about us that are not the result of DNA, can clearly be shown to be part of things like memes and nutrition. So what does this mean for our spiritual bodies?

COMMENT: I think you are overstating the science, suggesting that science can account for ALL of who we are. This is simply not true. Most importantly, science cannot account for consciousness itself, or self consciousness, although there are speculative theories attempting to do so. Becauses of these limitations, there is significant scientific room upon which to build a metaphysical theory that encompasses the idea of spirit entities and souls.

FCP: "There is a third possibility, that it still bears no resemblance to our current state, physical or mental, meaning that it is at best, an unrelated prisoner trapped in our body."

COMMENT: Yes. This is the possibility that the plan of salvation relies upon. However, the fact that there is this independence between spirit and body does not mean that the spirit plays no causal role in human function, including the function of the body. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that humans beings (and animals) have freewill, and freewill must be grounded somewhere. Moreover, freewill cannot be explained by appealing to physical processes alone.

DCP: "Now this poor parasite, that God put into our bodies, is totally dependent on how our genes, and its associated memes (the collection of ideas one learns from their environment, that forms the basis of their personality) responds to certain stimuli in order to get back into heaven. Since god is supposed to be fair and just, you can see how this would be a bit unfair."

COMMENT: Again, Mormonism does not have to logically accept your assumption that the spirit plays no role in our lives and decision-making just because it is "a prisoner of the body." As far-fetched and grossly speculative as the "plan of salvation" is, it is not "proved" false by genetics, simply because genetics is a physical phenomenon, and there is no reason for a Mormon to agree with your premise that the spirit is in all respects a non-dynamic (epiphenomenal) prisoner of the body.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> science cannot account for
> consciousness itself, or self consciousness,
> although there are speculative theories attempting
> to do so. Becauses of these limitations, there is
> significant scientific room upon which to build a
> metaphysical theory that encompasses the idea of
> spirit entities and souls.

Poorly stated, Henry -- all you've done is make an argument from ignorance.
There is no "scientific room" for "theories" based on things for which there is no evidence of any kind (meaning "metaphysical" and "spirit entities" and "souls"). Theories are explanations of observed phenomena based on facts. Theories aren't "ooh, we can't explain this, so it might be magic."

And I (and tens of thousands of neuroscientists) disagree that science "cannot account for consciousness." Very clear and massive evidence demonstrates that consciousness is a product of a working physical brain. That it's not *fully* explained (which it isn't) doesn't mean it's not accounted for at all. That's a straw-man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 02:32PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"And I (and tens of thousands of neuroscientists) disagree that science "cannot account for consciousness."

COMMENT: Well, then presumably you can give me that account, with reference to one of the "thousands" of neuroscientists that provides such an account. Note, what is important here is the ontological status of consciousness, not its physcial correlations. In other words, what is it in terms of science and physics? How is its existence explained?

If your physics and neuroscience textbooks do not address this issue, and cannot measure consciousness (not the brain, the subjective component), then it has not been explained scientifically. This is very basic science, and it is why physicists and neuroscientists virtally all acknowledge that consciousness remains a mystery.

"Very clear and massive evidence demonstrates that consciousness is a produce of a working physical brain. That it's not *fully* explained (which it isn't) doesn't mean it's not accounted for at all. That's a straw-man.""

COMMENT: Again, you are wrong. Of course "massive evidence" does indicate that subjective experiences have correlations with brain states or functions. That is a given. However, correlations are not explanations. Consider the fact that pressing the gas pedal on a car is always correlated with the car accelerating (assuming the car engine is on and the car is in gear, etc.) But that fact alone, i.e. the causal fact of acceleration, does not provide an explanation of either what "gas" is, or its relationship to the system. That necessary component (the gas), and its relationship to the system, requires its own explanation. Simiarly, the fact that the brain produces certain subjective experiences and certain behavior does not explain the underlying consciousness that supports such experiences.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Well, then presumably you can give me
> that account, with reference to one of the
> "thousands" of neuroscientists that provides such
> an account. Note, what is important here is the
> ontological status of consciousness, not its
> physcial correlations. In other words, what is it
> in terms of science and physics? How is its
> existence explained?

I did give you that account (that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain). That is a demonstrable fact. And "ontological" is not a scientific field of study, let alone "important." It may be "important" to you, or others who want there to be some magical aspect to it, but it's not a field of scientific study.

Once again, we do not yet fully understand every aspect of consciousness as the product of a functioning physical brain. But that it is such a function is well established. And every day more is learned about how the brain produces it. Without any appeal to "ontology" or spirits or souls, for which there is no evidence of any kind.


> This is very basic science, and
> it is why physicists and neuroscientists virtally
> all acknowledge that consciousness remains a
> mystery.

"Mystery" is not the word the vast majority of neuroscientists use. And "not fully understood yet" does not mean "it's a magical spirit or soul."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 03:43PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"I did give you that account (that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain). That is a demonstrable fact."

COMMENT: Again, "a product of" something suggests an emergent property; i.e. that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I agree with that. But, neuroscientists do not think that emergence explains what consciousness is, or why it exists as an emergent property of the brain. That is what I need you to explain!

______________________________________

And "ontological" is not a scientific field of study, let alone "important." It may be "important" to you, or others who want there to be some magical aspect to it, but it's not a field of scientific study.

COMMENT: You do not understand the term "ontological." Although it is a philosophical term, it uncontroverisally applies to science, since science is all about finding explanations as to the nature of reality, including what it means for something to exist. Specifically, quantum physics, where the lines between mathematical abtractions and physcial reality become fuzzy, the nature of reality (ontology) becomes crucial. This transfers to cosmology where questions as to the origin of the universe, encompassing black holes and singularities become front and center.

_____________________________________________

"Once again, we do not yet fully understand every aspect of consciousness as the product of a functioning physical brain. But that it is such a function is well established. And every day more is learned about how the brain produces it. Without any appeal to "ontology" or spirits or souls, for which there is no evidence of any kind."

COMMENT: Again, you are misinformed on all counts. Science has produced nothing on the nature of consciousness, and many believe that it transcends scientific explanation. I never said, or suggested that "spirits or souls" are necessary in such explanations. However, there is indeed evidence for such, including credible paranormal reports, which is "evidence" of some kind.

__________________________________________________

"Mystery" is not the word the vast majority of neuroscientists use. And "not fully understood yet" does not mean "it's a magical spirit or soul."

COMMENT: Scientists do use the word "mystery." In fact, it is the mystery of the unknown that motivates science, including neuroscientists. Most acknowledge that consciousness is the primary mystery to try to solve. A mystery does not imply any particular explanation, or that an explanation is even possible. That is why it is a mystery!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Again, "a product of" something suggests
> an emergent property; i.e. that consciousness is
> an emergent property of the brain. I agree with
> that. But, neuroscientists do not think that
> emergence explains what consciousness is, or why
> it exists as an emergent property of the brain.
> That is what I need you to explain!

I'm not that interested in your "needs." I'm interested in facts, knowledge, and evidence. Not only do those show that consciousness is produced by a working brain, they show a great deal about how it's produced and works. And that is exactly what neuroscientists discuss, study, and investigate.

> COMMENT: You do not understand the term
> "ontological." Although it is a philosophical
> term, it uncontroverisally applies to science,
> since science is all about finding explanations as
> to the nature of reality, including what it means
> for something to exist. Specifically, quantum
> physics, where the lines between mathematical
> abtractions and physcial reality become fuzzy, the
> nature of reality (ontology) becomes crucial. This
> transfers to cosmology where questions as to the
> origin of the universe, encompassing black holes
> and singularities become front and center.

Yes, I do understand the term -- and it's not a scientific field of study, no matter how much you want it to be. You also mis-represent "quantum physics" and cosmology. You're *assuming* there's "meaning," and that everyone does (or should) use "ontology" to find meaning. That's not true. Like your "need" for an explanation, this is your "need" for "meaning." It's not scientific, it's not universal, and it's not what you represent.

> COMMENT: Again, you are misinformed on all counts.
> Science has produced nothing on the nature of
> consciousness, and many believe that it transcends
> scientific explanation. I never said, or suggested
> that "spirits or souls" are necessary in such
> explanations. However, there is indeed evidence
> for such, including credible paranormal reports,
> which is "evidence" of some kind.

No, I'm not "misinformed." You are taking your own beliefs and desires for "meaning" and demanding they be taken seriously. When in science, they're not. For very good reasons. And no, sir, there is no evidence of any kind for any such thing, or anything paranormal. Evidence is verifiable and repeatable, not anecdotal and arguments from ignorance and incredulity. "Belief" is also irrelevant -- it matters not how many (if any) "believe it transcends scientific explanation" -- that's simply an argument from ignorance, a "soul of the gaps" claim that's rather silly.

> COMMENT: Scientists do use the word "mystery."
> In fact, it is the mystery of the unknown that
> motivates science, including neuroscientists. Most
> acknowledge that consciousness is the primary
> mystery to try to solve. A mystery does not imply
> any particular explanation, or that an explanation
> is even possible. That is why it is a mystery!

Yes, some do use that word. Most don't. For good reasons. "Unknown as of yet" fits better, and doesn't carry the "mystical" baggage the word "mystery" does.

YOU consider "ontology" useful and a valid field of study -- the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't, because it doesn't involve the scientific method. YOU demand "meaning," but for the most part science doesn't deal with it, because it's subjective and doesn't involve the scientific method. YOU "believe" in the paranormal and their claims, the scientific community doesn't because the claims are fallacious and anecdotal, have no valid evidence, and don't use the scientific method. Your projections of your own beliefs and desires onto "science" are not valid.

To ificouldhietokolob:

The term "ontological" means "relating to or based upon being or existence." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontological

One would think that most scientists would believe that their job is to discover what exists and what does not. For example, it would seem that most scientists believe that it is the job of science to discover electrons, germs, new planets, quarks, and such. Thus, one would think that scientists would care about ontology and ontological assertions. It seems strange that you think otherwise, which I presume is why Henry Bemis thought you must misunderstand the term.

Of course, some people think that science is not about discovering what exists at all. These people might think, for example, that science is just about telling stories that help to relate phenomena, none of which stories are to be taken literally. I would be surprised if the set of scientists comprised a high percentage of such people, but perhaps you are one such person.

Henry, I can not comment on what Mormons have twisted their beliefs to be today, I can only do so on what I was taught was our beliefs, when I was one.

Thank God for genetic research and discovery of evolutionary science. These have produced medical knowledge that's given us longer, healthier, quality lives. The Boner!

I have a niece who does plant genetic research at a major university. I have another niece who does her best to avoid (and preach anti) about anything GM. It makes for fun family reunions.

Once again I refer you to Sitchin's translation of the Sumarian tablets named THE LOST BOOK OF ENKI.

Had my DNA sequenced by 23andMe. Results suggest I have 2.9% Neanderthal DNA. Wonder what the churches take on that little tidbit would be? Wonder if I could temple work on those long lost relatives....

We should be proud of our neanderthal ancestry!

Just a short note- this is exactly the problem Mary Shelley was exploring in Frankenstein (the original).

Very good, forbidden. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have serious doubts that there is anything about us which is not material. Even people who believe in souls often claim that souls have residual mass or other properties. We are physical mass. The entity who is writing these words could be quickly removed with the stroke of a scalpel. But I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, know what I mean?

I haven't read everything in this thread, but it did make me wonder: if the spirit looks the body, what happened with Joseph Merrick, the Elephant Man, and has anyone dead-dunked the Elephant Man?