• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, California

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Seminarysnoozer's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)



  1. No, I said "how it relates", not just "you don't seem to understand" by itself. I think the moderators of this forum let one slip by when, in the other thread, I posted a sincere, gospel focused post about my beliefs and perspective and then you, before anyone else posted any comments about it, posted in essence ‘Hey everyone, don’t read her posts, they are boring. All she does is post the same thing over and over again.” I don’t post to every thread. Yes, I have my interests. As I have stated before, I am a nurse and my husband is a physician and we both see cases of people who are “brain dead” but their body is alive. We have to have discussions with families about whether we keep them on the ventilator and artificially keep them alive or not with the idea that maybe their spirit has already left their body. I have had families tell me the moment that happens, they can feel it. So, I deal, in a real sense, with the idea that we have both a body and a spirit, almost on a daily basis. And I have a strong testimony that one of the main reasons to come to Earth is to receive a body and to be tested “in the flesh” as opposed to being tested as a spirit alone. As the gospel is the way to pass that test, then discussing this relationship between spirit and body is relevant, at least in my mind. After you saying that my posts are irrelevant, I have given you argument that they are relevant, like in this thread. It is an attempt to show you how the idea of dual beings corresponds with many different aspects of the gospel. You are being closed minded about that and then telling me that I am claiming you lack understanding etc. Well, if you don’t lack understanding, in other words you do realize that it relates to this topic, then you are simply being defensive and threatening. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by thinking you really don’t see how it relates to so many topics and attempting to explain why, like I did in this thread. Obviously, there is a wall there. For the sake of the enjoyment I have had on this forum discussing gospel topics, I sincerely hope that I don’t have to post with some bullying threat of “backlash” over my head. After close to 4000 posts you are the only one who has made such threats. If you say, like you have, that you are not arguing against the idea that we are dual beings, in other words, you have no comment about the doctrine related to my comments, then what is your purpose to make such comments? I would have to assume it is not to bully but because you don’t understand where I am coming from and find it irrelevant to the discussion. After all that, you are threatening because I made such a kind assumption, guess I should have thought the former. I suppose I can make threats too! I guess we will see how the moderators feel about posting replies like, “Boring! It’s not worth reading his post!” every time you make any comment and then maybe the wall you have up for such an idea will start to crumble, if that’s the game you want to play. I don’t think the moderators want to thwart legitimate and sincere postings regarding LDS gospel as strongly as you do. If it is not of interest to you then simply don’t read it or even make a comment about it. But, I don’t think you should be telling people that their posts are irrelevant and that it isn’t worth even reading and then when they explain how they are relevant you “backlash” with threatening comments. The moderators are supposed to tell people what is relevant or not, that is not your job. I am open to you telling me my ideas are wrong, I have learned a lot on this forum from those types of discussion but that won't happen if you tell people to stop posting what they sincerely believe and it fits within the guidelines the moderators have established. Threatening to "backlash" is certainly not the way to promote that type of discussion.
  2. I didn't say that you didn't understand the gospel topic, I said that you would see how the thing you chid me on relates to this topic. It doesn't contradict what you said but speaks of the mechanics of such a thing, how does one forget in the first place and how does one remember. Calculus doesn't negate the rules of basic addition and subtraction. Instead of the one liner from Alma 5, one can, reading the whole chapter, realize that what "remembering" means is to put off the carnal man, to wash the garmets that are stained with blood, to not have the pride that the body drives, making people want to wear costly apparel etc and to receive a spiritual understanding. "Remembering" entails all of that, it doesn't go against that idea. It is simply a deeper understanding of what you are saying, not a contradictory statement. You wish it to be contradictory so that you can tell me I don't understand but that is not the case. The fact that you would chid me about it in the first place speaks volumes as well, as I didn't write anything contradictory to our gospel. Alma 5 - how to remember; " 53 And now my beloved brethren, I say unto you, can ye withstand these sayings; yea, can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet; yea, can ye be puffed up in the pride of your hearts; yea, will ye still persist in the wearing of costly apparel and setting your hearts upon the vain things of the world, upon your riches?" " 12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true. 13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved. 14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? 15 Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?" To "remember" includes the fact that we are now walking around in a mortal corrupted body and we have to picture ourselves in front of God without the corrupted mortal body to be judged by our spiritual deeds. The "change of heart" is one from a carnally minded one (a person that listens to the drives of the body over the spiritual ones) to a 'spirituallly born of God' state which is to say one is spiritually minded (to listen to the spirit more than the body). That IS the way to remember, which is what the Book of Mormon does, provides a 'Calculus' level understanding of the basic gospel of "just remember'.
  3. You chid me on the dual being thing but then you don't seem to understand how it relates to situations such as these. The spirit speaks to spirit. The natural body, ever pulling away from that which is spiritual can overpower that which was planted with the spirit. The strength of the message to the spirit can be just as strong but when a person gives heed and feeds the weeds around it (that being carnality or the physical body) then it chokes off even the strong message of the spirit. It is not that the spirit has changed, it is that the physical, the carnal mind, is more powerful. They are two forces at odds with each other. This is why we have to endure. We can't just receive it then all is well. We have to constantly, through the rest of our lives fight the pulling currents of the body, the things that drown out the message from the spirit even when it is a strong spiritual signal. So, that is what has changed, where one gives heed. But I suppose if you want to ignore that very core of our religion then it is hard to understand that idea. The strength of the message from the Holy Spirit doesn't change, like the signals from a radio station, it is just dependent on whether we tune into it or tune into the other radio station, that from our carnality.
  4. I don't just post for him, it is for all who might stumble on this thread and maybe read this thread alone. As it pertains to this topic it is relevant, we are talking about the difference between secular and spiritual knowledge and how it is received. This directly pertains to the dual being issue which is very unique to our religion. The fact that we come to this Earth to receive a body so we can be more like God is one of the cores of our religion and yet few seem to appreciate what the body brings to the character of the soul. It adds character to our soul that the spirit alone cannot provide and I think that alone is significant to better understand it especially when talking about things that develop that side of our soul. We have a hard time separating what aspect of our character comes from the body vs the spirit in this life, a topic that Paul spent a lot of time with.
  5. When you use words like "in no way" you make it nearly impossible to have a conversation about it. My mind is not so absolute as possibly (see there is my qualifier) your mathematical mind is. In this world we are dual beings, both spiritual and physical. We can separate them theoretically like does Corinthians but in terms of specifics and a practical way that is not possible because we are dual beings. As far as your second paragraph goes, that is exactly what I am saying but I think you think (maybe) that because it can occur in the one direction spiritual to physical that it can occur in the other direction, physical to spiritual. There is nothing in our scriptures that say that man can reach God through secular means alone. If the physical understanding is so important (what is retained in the neuronal circuitry of my brain), I hope I never grow old. What happens to the faithful person who in their older years develops something like Alzheimer's? Does that mean their spiritual knowledge is lost too? Of course not! Because the street is a one way street only and what matters most is what is retained spiritually. The Alzheimer's brain is not going to corrupt the spiritual knowledge gained. Secular knowledge can afford opportunity to have spiritual experiences but we still keep them separate. Just like money can afford opportunity to serve and have spiritual experiences if used that way but just having the money alone serves no purpose. Just having secular knowledge alone in this life serves no purpose, it has to be done and used with an eye single to the glory of God to have eternal consequences, otherwise it turns back to dust like everything else that comes from the Earth in mortality.
  6. Also, (see above post) I disagree with the idea that spiritual understanding is at par or even necessarily directly tied into our physical understanding. The brain is flawed, the actual wiring and set up is flawed to begin with. The brain makes up information and we cannot overpower it spiritually to stop it from doing that. We have to all live with that "thorn in the flesh". The brain's understanding is separate from our spiritual understanding. Consider the wonderful mind of the spirit inside of a body that has Down's syndrome. The brain overpowers the spirit. The spiritual influence is slight compared to the overpowering input from the brain in all of us. Spiritual learning is not so much our spirit learning facts but it is an expression of our dependence on spiritual influences. When we learn something on a spiritual level it is that we are learning to depend on the spiritual influences more than our physical brain. “The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. … “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:11, 14). Spiritual knowledge stays with the spirit, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God". In other words, it is possible in this life to gain spiritual knowledge and yet remain with a natural man brain throughout this life. Keep in mind too, as we age our natural man brain deteriorates, we lose memory and capacity to learn. The spirit doesn't do that and it cannot overpower that.
  7. We are kind of talking about what Jacob said here in 2 Nephi; "28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." I agree with what you are saying. I would suggest that pride or "vainness" is a physical need or drive. Spiritual things have to be done with an eye single to the glory of God, if they are not then they are not counted as spiritual anyways. So, if one is only considering their own prideful (vainness) interests and fame amongst men, then that cannot be called "spiritually minded" in the first place. "Spiritually minded" by definition means having an eye single to the glory of God and "harken(ing) unto the counsels of God." If not, all that learning becomes foolishness. Matthew 16; "26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" "gain the whole world" includes secular knowledge. Satan tried to get Christ to do "spiritual" things but for the wrong reasons because then they would not be spiritual. I like what President McKay said about that; "Classify them, and you will find that under one of those three nearly every given temptation that makes you and me spotted, ever so little maybe, comes to us as (1) a temptation of the appetite; (2) a yielding to the pride and fashion and vanity of those alienated from the things of God; or (3) a gratifying of the passion, or a desire for the riches of the world, or power among men.” And then he said: “Now, when do temptations come? Why, they come to us in our social gatherings, they come to us at our weddings, they come to us in our politics, they come to us in our business relations, on the farm, in the mercantile establishment, in our dealings in all the affairs of life, we find these insidious influences working, and it is when they manifest themselves to the consciousness of each individual that the defense of truth ought to exert itself." And after those temptations Jesus said Matthew 4; " 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." And that is the way Christ made Satan depart. He didn't make him depart by going toe to toe with him on an intellectual or physical battle. He did it by only serving God and not himself. This is what allowed him to overcome those temptations. D&C 20 explains; " 22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them." ... we are not supposed to give heed to the vainness of the world, which also includes becoming learned in exchange for harkening unto the councels of God. I think it is very similar to discussions on wealth and money, it is not evil by itself but the love of money is, to the point that that becomes a focus above spiritual things. Same thing for secular learning. We shouldn't love it more (or equal for that matter) than spiritual matters. We can't serve two masters.
  8. I think "reject" is too judgmental of a statement. If the priority is first spiritual, second secular, it might come across as being a rejection when in reality it is just a reflection of one's priorities and motives. President Eyring said; "The thirst for education that comes with the change the gospel brings can be a blessing or a curse, depending on our motives. If we continue to seek learning to serve God and His children better, it is a blessing of great worth. If we begin to seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride, which will take us away from eternal life. That is one of the reasons we should always put spiritual learning first. And that is why the Church has placed institutes of religion across the earth wherever young members are gathered in sufficient numbers. Their spiritual education in the institute will shape the purpose and speed the process of their secular learning." ... "It is clear that our first priority should go to spiritual learning. For us, reading the scriptures would come before reading history books. Prayer would come before memorizing those Spanish verbs. A temple recommend would be worth more to us than standing first in our graduating class. But it is also clear that spiritual learning would not replace our drive for secular learning." ... "All we can learn that is true while we are in this life will rise with us in the Resurrection. And all that we can learn will enhance our capacity to serve. That is a destiny reserved not alone for the brilliant, those who learn the most quickly, or those who enter the most respected professions. It will be given to those who are humbly good, who love God, and who serve Him with all their capacities, however limited those capacities are—as are all our capacities, compared with the capacities of God." In other words, if all one is able to accomplish in this life is successful learning of the spiritual things first, the rest "will be given", according to President Eyring. It isn't the other way around. It isn't first learn the earthy things, the secular things, then spiritual things will be given.
  9. Why? Cause you are JELLous of his ability to speak German?
  10. Why doesn't an argument against a conclusion include the premise, especially if it is discussed that way? In other words, people, when discussing things - at least in my house, often also discuss how they arrived at such a conclusion and present it as one item and not broken into premises and conclusions. Maybe there is some prejudice for the defender to think that the arguments are focused on the conclusion and doesn't verify that actually the person is arguing against the whole.
  11. I find it funny that heavier and slower moving particles are harder to see, as is dark matter described (German is catchy, throwing the verb at the end of the sentence.) Would the description of the material being "feiner" really fit with something that is larger than normal matter particles? Also, if something is of greater quantity than its comparison, how does that fit with the words "feiner oder reiner"? Usually, when something is refined or purified one ends up with a smaller quantity. Also, if God created the universe spiritually first and then physically, where is the corresponding "physical" creation to that greater percentage dark matter, if we were to say that is like spirit matter? Is it that when God creates something spiritually He would have to use more matter, more mass, than when it is created physically? For example, how much intelligence would the moon require in its spiritual creation? Is the mass of the moon's spiritual creation greater than the mass of one child of God's spiritual creation? With all the children of God spirits in one spot, the Earth should contain the greatest amount of dark matter than anywhere else, if that really is spirit matter. ... things to think about.
  12. Haha, yes! I am in the same boat. For me, it is, I think, because the philosophy of ying-yang doesn't resonate with me in the first place. Opposition and stability, to me, cannot co-exist for very long just like one cannot serve two masters for very long.
  13. I appreciate this description, I think that is how I looked at it as well and not so much as a counter-balance. Maybe the better word for this thing is harmony, as you have used here. Harmony is, I think, what you are really trying to talk about and not so much Ying-Yang balance (but then again I don't really believe in ying-yang "balances" to begin with). I tend to look at ying-yang as a state of competition, turmoil, etc - kind of like how this life is described to us, a state of opposition where we ultimately cannot serve two masters. The revealing of which master we serve, and to what degree, is the whole purpose of being in a state of opposing forces. The end result, though, is to serve one master.
  14. Luke 8; "12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection."
  15. Do we understand what it means - "to bring to pass"?