Seminarysnoozer

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why? Cause you are JELLous of his ability to speak German?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Do we understand what it means - "to bring to pass"?

To be honest, I don't understand, really, the idea of opposites in a state of balance. When opposites are at play there is opposition not balance. Opposition is a state of flux, a state of change or at least a potential for change it is not a state of resting. I don't believe our religion teaches there must be a "counter balance" to righteousness and that the counter balance needs to be maintained. In this probationary state there is opportunity for change and flux and therefore a state of opposition exists to allow for change. When things are stable, in other words, in balance, there is no need for opposition to maintain stability. At least that is the way I understand it.

What work is performed when time is stopped? Is our God not a God of works? Stopping time would not be compatible with God's work or plan or purpose. God's works are endless and continuous. They cannot stop. According to our understanding of God, time cannot stop. It is His work and glory to bring things to pass. "Bringing things to pass" requires the passage of time even if it is perceived differently, it cannot stop. Even when all things are before Him, there still has to be a distinct past, present, future. God cannot be timeless even with His ability to perceive all time.

Because a computer does what it is "told" or programmed to do. A better metaphor might be a cowboy on a wild horse. Until the passions of the body are bridled and controlled the "wild horse" will do what it wants, this is the natural man state. Even after subdued, the "wild horse" will still have its tendencies and needs that are different than the rider's. The ying and the yang suggest two different masters or the possibility that one is stronger than the other. Most of the time, while in this life, the body is in control. Even the most skilled at spiritual influence will find it difficult to not fall asleep when the body master expresses its drives, just like what happened with the apostles, for example. The computer does not exert its demands over mine or even close, it can't tell me what to do (another person's programing and input might tell me what to do but nothing generated by the computer alone can have some force over me)... so its not the best example of what dual opposing natures means when talking about our carnal vs spiritual nature. There are passions and forces generated by the body alone, that do not come from the spirit, this is what is meant by dual opposing natures explained by President David O. McKay.

Thanks, yes I get that. I think what I was trying to convey was the idea that the symbolism had to use something that extends beyond itself without getting hung up on the thing that is delivering the extension. If we were to use the metaphor of a telephone line, we wouldn't want to confuse the electrical impulses involved in sending the message converted to sound as the important center of power received. I think we get hung up, in general (not you), that somehow light itself carries an intrinsic power where it is just symbolic of something that can eminate and be transmitted to something else beyond itself as is the power of God. The metaphor is useful on many levels, of course, but one of which is the ability of light to eminate from one object and share its power with another body. There are not many natural things that can do that and so light becomes the easy metaphor for the power of God but one could also, if these things were understood well enough back then, use gravity, electricity, radiation etc. Some of the confusion about it is that light is also used as a metaphor for intelligence, it is a convenient metaphor but also a source of confusion when one doesn't know which aspect of the metaphor a particular phrase is using. We would face similar problems if we used gravity as the metaphor, then a person might wonder, well does that mean God draws people in? Or if we used radiation as a metaphor, well does that mean a person would burn up if they got too close to God? Light, in my opinion, is one of those metaphors that comes with many overlaping meanings in the scriptures. But like you are saying the first step in not becoming confused about any metaphor is to not take it as literal. I agree with that.

Or maybe it is all symbolic and is just a way of saying that one thing is greater than another without really saying that one actually rotates faster or slower than another.

I totally disagree with this idea. We are told numerous times that the body has it's own nature. Prophets have stated we are dual natured, not one nature with an extender. Recent general conference talks even have described the body as having it's own passions and drives. Elder Holland has spoken of mental disorders as something to be treated like we do any other type of illness of the body. In many areas of the scriptures we are taught that there is such a thing as the learning of man and the understanding of men and this occurs when a person does not listen to the spirit or has very little spiritual insight. When a person has psychosis, hallucinations etc, is that generated from the spirit or are those spontaneous thoughts from the brain (the body)? If a person has Alzheimers was the spirit injured? Why does the body and the brain have to develop to a certain point and have certain characteristics and abilities before one can be held accountable? If the body does nothing but extend the spirit then there should be no reason why one with Down's syndrome is not held accountable for their actions. If a person with Tourrette's yells out an explitive during Sacrament meeting, you believe that was generated by the spirit alone, that the body is just the reflection of the spiritual input? Or could it be that the brain actually does generate spontaneous mortal thought with which we have to contend? Unlike a computer, the brain, imagines, it makes up false information, it is run by self preservation (selfishness) in many different ways that can represent itself in terms of hunger, thirst, drive for power, jealousy, sexual drives, anger, prideful intellectualism etc. The filled in "blind spot" in your vision is made up by the brain. It created new information that was not there. Yes, it can do that! It is not made by the spirit. (As one small example.) Most dreams are made up by the brain. We have a hard time separating what comes from the brain vs the spirit but most often the spirit is described as a still small voice type influence, it is hard to tune into it. The default, the natural man, does not listen to spiritual influences. So, in other words, most of our thought and actions and especially if one is not striving 100%of the time for spiritual insight, is driven by the mortal brain. If one did not work hard at it their thoughts would be occupied by mostly brain derived material not spirit. The carnal has to be overcome in order to let the spirit be the controling force in one's life. That is the test, what is in control the carnal man or the spiritual man. Most in this world do not have the spirit in control.

Ah, so being anxiously engaged in a good cause is just teaching us to be minions.

I saw the movie, I think it is a great piece of fiction, fun! Maybe that's why I was thinking about this. Even if someone were to claim that the theories regarding time and speed are true and also claim that they know God's realm to operate within the same sphere of laws as ours, that still doesn't seem intuitive that something that moves slower is greater. If the units are relatable as in 1000 years = 1 day then how is the one day greater than 1000 years. That is my question. Or why is it true that because one day = 1000 years that the system that moves slower is deemed greater? Why isn't it that the system that sees 1000 years relative to the other systems one day is greater? Certainly a lot more can be done and accomplished in 1000 years than in one day. [DONT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED INTERSTELLER YET] If you watched the movie Interstellar then you realize one of the tragedies of the movie was that there was a lot lost by the ones that experienced time go by relatively slower, for every minute a certain number of years went by for their family. Where in the end (hopefully not spoiling the movie) the ones that lived the years were surrounded by family and content. I don't grasp the concept of how time moving faster or slower is somehow related to superiority over another system. Explain the mechanics of that if you seem to understand that. The only way that my brain can appreciate one being superior than another is if they both experience the same rate of time passage but one unit is greater than another like counting seconds compared to years. We don't express our age by how many seconds we have had but if we did, of course, the number would be very high in comparison. But then why is the low number "greater" or superior? Just because the units change doesn't necessarily make one greater than another. We would all agree that one dollar is not greater than 200 cents unless one thinks that just because the money might be "reckoned" in dollars that that in and of itself makes it greater.

Maybe I am just having a hard time grasping the concept ... why is it that if something moves slower it is greater? It seems counter intuitive to me. If something were to move faster, that seems like that should be greater, more could be done in a shorter amount of time. Isn't that right? Or am I thinking of this backwards? Abraham 3; " 5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years." I have a hard time understanding why wouldn't a day to us be like a thousand years to God and not the other way around? Why wouldn't God be able to get done a thousand years worth of work compared to one day of our work? Or is it that a thousand years of our work equals one day of His work? But since we are talking about "reckoning" it is just a perception thing, right? Is it just that a thousand years 'seems' like a day to God? But then the scripture says the thing that moves slower is greater. That seems confusing to me. Why wouldn't the thing that moves faster be greater? It would have more energy and get more done in a shorter amount of time if it were faster? I must be thinking about this wrong but have a hard time putting a finger on it. Maybe it is something like the idea that an hour moves by slower than a minute and that the measurement or order is different but the perception of time passing by is the same rate, just different units.

Symbolic associations are just that. They are there to help us understand things at a different level. When we talk about a "burning in the boosom" or change of heart, for example, we are not actually talking about our chest or heart. If someone receives an artificial heart, have they had a change of heart? Have they lost all their desires? Is the person now a different person? In a literal sense, the only thing that we know changes personality are changes to the brain. Emotional responses, desires, reactions to environment are all funnled through the brain, not the heart. So, is a person wrong in saying that they have had a 'change in heart' when what they are talking about really is a spiritual change or a change in their level of righteousness when a "change in their executive funtioning in the brain" might be a more exact physiologic representation of the spiritual event? No, it isn't wrong because we know we are using symbolic terms. When we eat the bread of the sacrament are we eating actual flesh? Do we need to spill actual blood to repent? Confusion arises when we lose the abstract meaning of the phrase and think of it as purely concrete. If one takes all things in the scriptures as literal associations then one should do that across the board and not pick and choose which ones are literal and which ones are not. I would say most things in the scriptures and in particular the Bible are representations of the actual. The Book of Mormon and the D&C are slightly more simple and plain in their presentation and then modern prophets and apostles help us understand better what is literal vs symbolic. Jesus spoke in parables to confound those that did not have spiritual insight and to enlighten those that had spiritual insight. Spiritual insight requires an abstract understanding of the physical.