Seminarysnoozer

Which body? the one God created or the fallen body? ... The original, probably not, as perfect bodies have to be created not begotten, the fallen body probably as the changes reflect the genetic make up of a form that can procreate itself.

These questions are the questions I am asking. When the Bible says if someone takes your coat give him your cloak, it kind of sounds like that .... that you are to freeze to death before becoming angry. In a perfect world where everyone is living the gospel what would happen is the widow would say, "I would starve without his wages." Then the company would say, "We are not going to let that happen, here is enough to keep you from starving." But if the widow says, "you are going to pay for your negligence," that is a totally different thing. I think the key word in your example is 'pursue.' Maybe that is where the line is drawn. I think becoming bankrupt and starving may be the witness to the severity of that act and God takes the result of that action into account at judgment day. Otherwise if the price has been paid, the magnitude of the wrong is lessened there is no wrong. I think in that example, if the company paid all the wages he would have gotten for his work until retirement than that would be reasonable. From the employers side, if the payout is looked as punishment, then maybe she shouldn't have taken that portion above what was lost by his absence in terms of wages. I don't know. What do you think? Would Joseph Smith's death mean something different if the church sued the state that led to his wrongful death and won a settlement? I think it would. I think if a company settles, that is one thing, they could even be 'grieving with those that grieve', which is a good thing, but if they are paying reluctantly because the widow put pressure on the company surrounded by lawyers, that is a different thing. I am not sure, I am torn about what is morally right.

If you are referring to my opinion, it is not established. This is why I bring this up. I am trying to understand how this fits with those scriptures. I don't know the details of your situation and I think it is difficult to make strong sweeping statements of any commandment, even "though shalt not kill" can have its discussion. On the other hand, I wouldn't use one exception to justify a general edict. I am thankful for your views because it helps shape mine and keep an open mind about all of this. Please don't take it as a chastisement of your decision and your family if you are talking about me, I am sure your Bishop and you and your family are correct in your decisions. I am just trying to understand.

Depends on the direction of the swat. :)

I think the best action is to try to befriend the person that hurt you, in that scenario, and change their heart. In the heat of the moment, I agree you have to protect yourself, but after safety is reached I don't think it is our duty to pursue damages according to these scriptures. If the price to pay for the potential of protecting someone else is having anger in one's heart, then it is not worth it in the end. Or, in other words, is it worth risking your own heart to go after someone and potentially protect someone else? Maybe in some cases that is appropriate but then what you take on yourself is judgment and the risk of having hate in your heart. "How do you put a price on that?" I think that is the point. How can we in our limited view put a price on any sin without having the authority to deal with it? I don't think we can. I think that is Gods job, to judge, if we take that on ourselves we are taking on God's authority and work. It's probably best to leave that to God's judgment than take a stab at it ourselves. By putting your hand on the Bible and saying in front of a jury, "that person should pay for their crimes" you are claiming to know everything about that person, what is in his/her heart, their intentions, their motivations and their understanding of the law (God's law). That is a lot to take on. I think if someone does something wrong against any of us it is better to say, I'll let the authorities figure it out, in a "give Ceaser what is Ceaser's" attitude. We are supposed to love those that curse us and pray for those that despitefully use us, right? I think if we are not a Judge or a police officer or someone in authority over that thing we are supposed to leave it alone. That is what I am contemplating, it seems that is what the scriptures are saying.

I think the dangers of this though are taking on oneself a feeling of teaching someone else a lesson via punishment. I think it is appropriate and our duty to teach others who do wrong to do the right thing but not via punishment. It should be done with a loving, long-suffering, kind heart. I realize that is an overwhelming commandment, for me it is. I am quick to fight back and defend myself ... I'm sure I even show that side of myself on this forum. But ideally I don't think it is our duty or command to meet out punishment for people who do wrong. Maybe that is why this came to my attention, I know its something I have to work on. In the end, God will hold all responsible for their sins, I don't think we have to worry about justice not being served.

Thanks for sharing your story. I am always amazed at families that can forgive so quickly. For me, at least, I think this would be one of the most difficult tests HF could throw my way. Whenever I hear stories like this it seems they always end in good feelings and thankfulness, but when I hear stories of law suits and even when they win the bitterness and the hate remains, it does nothing to calm it down, maybe even inflame the hate and anger. Thanks for sharing. :)

What does it mean to turn the other cheek in our day? Matthew 5: 38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also." And; Matthew 5: 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" And 3 Nephi 13:15 “If ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” I had a friend tell me she won a fairly big settlement in a law suit and the majority of it was for "pain and suffering." She received amounts beyond medical bills and destruction of her property even. This was several years ago and at the time I was her visiting teacher when she said this, I wanted to respond with those scriptures above but I held my tongue. I am thankful I didn't judge her as she became a good friend of mine, but it made me think of what I would do if faced with similar circumstances. I, luckily, have never had to face that decision but I can see how it would be hard to not be angry in a law suit and ask for "pain and suffering." It seems that "pain and suffering" law suits would be against the gospel of Jesus Christ, am I over reading these commandments? I would think too, a Christian lawyer would not want to participate in such law suits involving pain and suffering either. Maybe you could say the same about starting any law suit, but at a minimum those that would require payment for "pain and suffering" should be avoided. I believe in upholding the laws of the land and the state charging criminals, but "going after someone" in court seems against these principles.

You would think there would already be ordinances in place to protect against discrimination in housing and employment. It's strange they are just coming out with the ordinance.

It's also natural for many species for the male to protect its territory and prevent other males from entering its territory and keep its pride or herd etc. So, when a gang-banger comes in your neighborhood and takes what it wants including doing what they want with young children you would just say, that is natural, part of our species behavior, doing what comes natural. If that's natural then I take it you wouldn't believe in policing them or putting them in jail. And likewise as an army reservist why would you fight another member of your own species unless you thought there was some moral hierarchy to the group you fight with. Where does that moral hierarchy come from? Who's to say that maybe our species would have done better by limiting the population by remaining barbaric and fighting with each other, protecting our small groups without banding together. Why not say one man taking another man's possession is just the "food chain" as that happens in nature too. Just because you are more passive than the gang-banger doesn't mean that his way is not the right way. Right? In the gang-bangers mind he is just preserving his way of life. In your way understanding of the purpose and the meaning of this life is self-preservation or preserving your way of life, then the pirate, the terrorist, the robber and the gang-banger have just as much right to protect their way of life. With that thinking, you wouldn't think you are morally superior than those that bombed the world trade center, right? In their minds, they are just trying to protect their way of life. And why do you care about selfishness? By the way, I am not trying to pick on you, you are the only one I know willing to respond to this kind of questioning and you are kind enough to put up with such railings. I do appreciate it. I am sincerely trying to understand your logic.

There is no "mortal existence" with that belief, it is just existence. So, with that description "...and as a result we have convinced ourselves that we are somehow superior to other living organisms" you think our lives are as valuable as any other living organism on this planet? The same value as the millions of viruses that are dying in your stomach right now? It is just as valuable as all the bacteria and yeast in the nose and mouth your body kills every day? Why should you remain in existence more than all those life forms that you kill by your very existence? ... unless of course you thought you were superior to a virus, bacteria or yeast. The poor little herpes virus that lives in the lip wants to group together and form a cold sore but the immune system keeps them at bay, and the streptococcus in the nose just want to group together in the nose like the zebra group together but the murderous immune system kills them before they flourish. How can you justify living any longer?

As Clarity said, I agree, failure I think can be summed up as letting carnal pleasures take precedence over spiritual pleasures.

I think what is the most interesting thing about this story is that Korihor admits to always knowing there was a God, he had to write it down, because he was struck dumb. And he explained that he was deceived by the devil and then started to even believe the lie. "and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me." There is a difference between not knowing the truth and going out and speaking untruths. By speaking lies one may even start to believe them himself. And that is why they shouldn't be brought up as a possibility when one knows it is not true because one will slowly start to close off what really is true.

What is your best guess as to why a piece of rock at the bottom of earths crust has "intelligence"? It's not like the intelligence can act on the rock. I believe God can act on material, but why would it actually need some "intelligence" inside of it, only assigned to that rock? I think by definition, "intelligence" has to be enough material together to actually contain some amount of intelligence. A rock has zero intelligence. Why would there have to be an "intelligence" assigned to something that could not express any bit of intelligence at all? I believe God creates everything spiritually, meaning He planned ahead. Maybe there is a spirit for the whole earth as a whole. To me, in my limiting understanding, that is like saying I am going to flow electricity through a piece of paper because I want to give "life" to everything like "life" given to a computer when it has electricity. Electricity on a piece of paper does as much as "intelligence" on a rock, in my mind. If that's what the authorities have said, I will believe it, I just have a hard time understanding it.

Spirit matter though is actually matter, at least that's what I thought. I realize its not the same matter as here on earth, its a finer more pure form of matter, but I never thought of it as massless matter. And I never thought of our spirits needing to replenish itself and reform itself as our earthly body does, I thought once the spirit is formed it is permanent, it is an eternal structure. Am I wrong, or is it simply unknown. I hear responses like yours and sounds like it is backed with some kind of insight that seems different than my perceptions. It seems that if the spirits were some kind of universal energy like light than God would simply destroy the third that didn't follow his plan, why waste material? But if the spirit is a permanent structure that has to remain eternal in its state then all He could do is cast them down and out of His presence. A mortal body can return to dust because that's where it came from, but I don't think once a spirit is formed, even the spirit of a cat or dog etc., can be returned to its native basic material. That's just my opinion until someone explains it differently.

"Fail" sounds so final ... is the test over?

How did you know I like diet coke? ...*looks out the window to see if someone is watching

On one hand you say humans are born with instincts, which I think is true, see my previous post (light of Christ) but then on the other hand you say if you were to ignore those it would be against a drive for a satisfying and meaningful life on an "individualistic level". Why do you care about a life of meaning after you are dead and gone? If you do not believe in an afterlife or God why would you care if our world faces extinction. Eventually everyone you know and care about will be gone and since you are not around any longer to care about it it would be no different than an alien race on a far away planet surviving or not. What difference would it make to you? None, if you believe there is no God. It would hold as much significance as a character in a novel living or dying or doing well or poorly. Your life is as meaningful as Batman living or dying or catching the bad guy or not. I really don't care if Batman lives or dies or if they turn him into a villan, it is a made up morality and life, it means nothing when the story is over. The reason you want to live a happy life and ensure that we live fulfilling lives is because you still have a little light of Christ in you that tells you your life has meaning. Please, reason out loud, because I am trying to understand this and have tried many times, why do you care if our species faces extinction after you are long gone and nothing and everyone you know is gone? Why does it matter to you? If you knew you were going to die of cancer in a week or two, why not rob a bank or shooting spree or be promiscuous? You wouldn't care after you are dead any more than if you did those things on Grand Theft Auto video game.

We are to follow Christ's example in every way we can. He overcame this world, all the passions, treasures, fame and even death. Fasting when combined with prayer can allow us to listen to the spirit more closely and learn how to not be be distracted by temporal passions. But it is also a way of being thankful for the things we have. We are told in D&C section 59 that it should be done with joy. It's not supposed to be a painful thing but a way of saying I know I have so much, I will give of my abundance to someone else. And by making sacrifices God listens to our prayers.

Then with that description, there is no "spirit" of a rock per se. There would just be billions and billions of atom spirits all grouped together as part of a single rock but still maintain their individual creation of atom spirits or whatever smaller unit spirits are made of. And when the rock is split in half, you didn't break a 'spirit' but just broke apart a grouping of a whole bunch of spirits. But then that would mean eventually there would have to be some final common unit or quantum of spirit and likely it is not an atom, something smaller than that. Because there are isotopes of atoms, like protium or hydride. So then you would have to say God made googolplexes of spirits to occupy the smallest of particles, like each quark, nutrino and lepton and all the other ones that are just theoretical etc., or even smaller. That is hard to comprehend. I guess I have a hard time understanding why God would make an individual spirit for a single quark in the universe.

I am glad people feel that way otherwise you are right we would live in a very barbarian world. But, to me at least, that is the very reason I believe most people in this world have some "light of Christ" in them. They know basic wrong from right. We are just debating where that "plenty of meaning" you see as well comes from. I say it comes from their spirit not from their "minds". Of course, the spirit expresses itself through the mind so it can be hard to distinguish. I believe that everyone here believed in Jesus, and therefore God, before coming here and still maintains some of that. To not believe in God takes effort. In other words, we don't start out with a clean slate, we start with a belief in God as little children. I am not saying an 'understanding,' of course that comes with study and pondering and learning but the basic belief is there. A disbelief in God requires some hardening of the heart to the point of ignoring that inner light. And I think it is important to realize that most of the time that hardening process comes in little steps, like not going to church when invited or fighting with your siblings when you are young or choosing to not listen to one's parents or not reading the scriptures when you are invited to (etc.) and then eventually one may ponder the possibility of their not being a God when the heart is hardened to that degree. But the arrival at that state of mind of unbelief was not made based on any logical reasoning, it came about by a series of emotional or moral choices, the same emotion that people wonder about in those that believe in God. It is almost a hypocritical thing to say that 'one should not believe in God based on emotion' when the person making that statement claims to not believe in God. It is almost hypocritical because they, most of the time, don't realize their belief is based on emotional decisions in their life. The belief that there is no God, is believing in a lie. And the lie comes from the father of all lies. It is very deceptive because I think most people who even say they don't believe in God, in their heart of hearts really do believe, they just ponder the possibility of there not being a God. This is why Jesus said, forgive them for they know not what they do. Jesus knows those people really do believe in God and the gospel just they forgot or were deceived along the way. This is why in the Plan of Salvation an overwhelming majority of people will receive a glory, very few will be cast into outer darkness for their claim of unbelief. Even Satan believes in God. We are asked to be like little children, because their 'light of Christ' has not yet been jaded by the lies of this world and God wants us to remember what it was like when we fully believed without any clouding by our temporal thoughts.

I agree with Hordak. It kind of depends on where one starts though. It is like the parable of the sower (Matthew 13). If one is not rooted well, like being planted in stoney earth, the seed is easily scorched. Or if it is rooted well but one surrounds themselves with thorns or thorny thoughts then it might choke out one's testimony. Verses 21 through 23 explain the scenarios that change a person's testimony. I have seen many in my own family that get easily offended and leave the church but most often they are those that haven't rooted themselves well. I have others in my family that rely on their secular education for answers, professors and doctors, who let the thorns of that education choke out the truth or those pursuits become more important than the gospel. I think it varies for everyone, the best prevention is root yourself well in the truth and listen to the spirit and bear fruit, then when these challenges come it won't kill the 'seed'.

The first sentence is right. (And by the way, I am a she) I am only saddened by that speculation by someone who claims to know God. I am not talking about everyone. This is an LDS gospel discussion forum. Let me try to explain; There is a dichotomy between temporal based thought processes and spiritual based thought processes. In other words, mind versus heart, reasoning versus faith, fear versus love. Of course we typically think of things using a combination of these processes, we can't help it. But our goal is to take of the better part, like Jesus explained to Martha. This thread paints that spectrum between mind and heart, the knowing of what is real (mind)versus the feeling good (heart) way of knowing. Our goal is to overcome the temporal, to follow Jesus' example in doing that. When posed with this dichotomy, as members of the church who understand the gospel we should always push towards knowing and understanding spiritually. The natural man is an enemy to God. Happiness is greater when understanding the ways of God is done spiritually. Why then would anyone with any ounce of testimony of the true gospel of Christ want to push understanding in the opposite direction of spiritual understanding. Sure when one is starting out in their understanding it is good to do things out of fear than nothing at all, to understand with the mind, but then once that is had Jesus taught the better way is through love, through the spirit. Why push back in the opposite direction. Trying to reason through whether God is real by temporal understanding is the opposite direction Jesus wants us to go. When Jesus was on his ministry, How much of what he said do you think flowed from his brain only versus his spirit directly? He had to overcome his brain, he had to grow in stature and favor of men and God. But once he overcame the body, his words were purely of a spiritual source. We are not close to that, but that is our goal. So why promote the temporal method? Why push backwards in our understanding? If you really are not a man of God then I could understand that thought process. But if one already has a testimony and holding onto the iron rod, the temporal reasoning and contemplation method holding more weight than the "feeling" method is wrong and should not be promoted. In that setting it serves no purpose but to pull away from real understanding. If one has no understanding of God at all, sure temporal reasoning is a good start until the spirit ultimately rules over the body (brain). If your brain rules your spirit there is more work to do but if the spirit rules the brain, then one is taking of the better part, like Mary did. In so many words, and maybe I am misinterpreting this, please tell me, it seems that you give more weight to temporal understanding than to spiritually understanding the things of God. And I think wanting and desiring a temporal way to understand God over the spiritual method is most often counterproductive and causes one to lose their grip on the iron rod, at least it doesn't make their grip any stronger, so why promote it? Again, towards the end of Jesus life, what percentage of his words do you think came directly from his brain (no spiritual input) versus purely from his spiritual thought process? “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Rom. 8:5–6.) Elder John A. Widtsoe taught that “there is a spiritual meaning of all human acts and earthly events. … It is the business of man to find the spiritual meaning of earthly things. … No man is quite so happy … as he who backs all his labors by such a spiritual interpretation and understanding of the acts of his life.” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1922, pp. 96–97.)

I am not affected by you responding with telling me my comments are "bizarre" or "sad" or that I am "lecturing you", whatever, I know I am not perfect in my speech or thought process but still believe this can be a fruitful way of expanding my understanding and other readers may gain some insight. If you really want to have a conversation then I will try one more time but please try not to get caught on one aspect of my imperfect speech or try to "figure out what I am trying to accomplish" and miss the topic. I can tell you one thing I am not trying to accomplish, change your opinions, because I see that is next to impossible. If you think what I am saying is not accurate, fine, tell me what it is that is not accurate through all the persuasive, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned and kind authority you have in you... nobody on this forum is perfect. Another attempt; Boyd K. Packer said; " But if you learn by reason only, you will never understand the Spirit and how it works—regardless of how much you learn about other things. The scriptures teach that “great men are not always wise.” Spiritually you may “know not, and know not that you know not,” and be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (refering to 2 Timothy 3:7) My point was that if you try to find a back door to the truth instead of the way the scriptures tell us to know the truth then you will "know not that you know not." Simply put, drop the "prove it" in other words. You are a priesthood holder, you know that it doesn't work that way, and yet you keep coming back with prove it, prove it, prove it. "I would like to see you prove that my thinking is not a function of my brain but is also a function of my spirit. Do you think I will have to wait long for the proof?" ...asking for proof when my point is that it can't be done with proof, how bizarre is that, or how closed minded, or contentious ... one of those. It is impossible to arrive at a 'real' knowledge of God when ones thought process is "He could be real but maybe He is not." It is only when the "maybe He is not real" is dropped, becoming unwavering and through obedience to His commandments then the spirit can confirm that knowledge. There is no back door to that knowledge, no amount of secular reasoning or education or "great minds" lecture that you "resonate" with, presenting a "He may not be real" argument will do it. By considering He is not real, takes you away from that knowledge, so what's the purpose of that thought process other than to drag people away from the truth like the voices in the spacious building. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways and is faulty in his thinking. Please teach me then, through all the high held values of a priesthood holder, if what I am saying and what Elder Packer is saying is wrong.

Thought we were talking about his original plan presented to the host of heaven, not the change of plans after it was rejected. He didn't want us to have any agency at all, so he couldn't have included a fall in the original idea. Elder Kendrik, seventies Ensign 1996 "The Council in Heaven. References in the revelations give evidence that a Grand Council was convened during our premortal life. All of Heavenly Father’s spiritual children were there. The purpose of the council was to prepare us for our earthly experiences. We were taught all that we would need to know to return to Heavenly Father’s presence one day. We did indeed receive “[our] first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord.” After the plan of salvation was presented for a sustaining vote, Heavenly Father inquired as to whom He should send to put the plan into effect in mortality. Satan responded with an alteration of the plan, a version conceived with an evil intent. He said: “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost … ; wherefore give me thine honor.” Satan’s plan would indeed “destroy the agency of man.” Selfish and senseless, his plan defied eternal law. It was an impossible plan, for without moral agency no one could become exalted. Today he continues to activate parts of his evil plan, appealing to the carnal tendencies of man through temptations. If we are not aware, we may find ourselves being lured by Satan’s temptations, and if we follow his plan we will become like him. " His plan was to destroy agency, so there would have been no temptation needed in his original idea. After, he could only "activate parts of his evil plan," as stated above.