Seminarysnoozer

Members
  • Posts

    3421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Suzie in Lesson 15 (Eternal Marriage) questions   
    SpamLDS:
     
     
    Oh wow, so women were more "spiritual" than men even in the pre-existence?
     
     I don't wanna die young so let me clarify and say I am being 100% sarcastic.
  2. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to The Folk Prophet in Become as Little Children   
    Good thoughts.
     
    As I see it, there are three tiers to motivation. 1. Fear. 2. Hope for reward. 3. Love.
     
    The highest, and best reason to be and do good is, as we know, love. Love of God and love of fellow-man. However, the other two tiers, where lesser reasons, are still valid reasons that are consistent throughout God's word as given in the scriptures. The scriptures are consistent with warnings of destruction for failure to be and do good, and they are replete with the promises of reward for doing and being good.
     
    I see it as necessary in the training/raising of children to address all three motivations. I think it is inappropriate to disregard the first two tiers. Parents that ignore them and only go with "love" as the solution to raising someone fail to teach them important concepts of consequence for behavior (punishment/reward). Consequence for behavior is a key aspect of agency.
     
    However, as you have implied, I think that it's very natural to fall into defaulting to the first tier, as in, "Behave or be punished", as the full measure of parenting. It is well to remember and incorporate more fully the other tiers as well -- most particularly instilling in our children a love of righteousness, God, and their fellow-men.
  3. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Blackmarch in Emotion before the fall?   
    Why doesn't "open everything" describe the first estate test to you?  To me, that was "open everything".  That was the pick your major, where are trying to go with this type of decision.  We had the testimony of God which was more direct than what the Holy Ghost can do while we are here behind the veil. 
     
    I think we are held accountable for our character.  Our choices in life, whether they be carnally minded or spiritually minded outline a form of character testing from which God can justify our final designated Kingdom.  The final judgement is not just based in our desire but our capability as well, it is, at least in part, based on a character exam. 
     
    Like when my husband was accepted to medical school, not only did he have to do well on the MCAT but he also had to do well in the interview and show through his various volunteering and work that he was desirous to become a doctor all along.  This life is more like the interview process, the knowledge part of the testing is done, the first estate test.  We all here did well on the first estate test. Now we are being "interviewed" as to our integrity and moral character.   Part of the moral character is based in intelligence, so that cannot be separated from the test altogether but it is more than that alone, it is a test of our true nature while we are limited.
     
    I know I have used this metaphor before but I liken it to the difference between the soldier who in boot camp says "I will never leave a fallen soldier behind" vs the one who in the heat of the battle actually goes in despite risk to his own life and saves the fallen soldier.  Not everyone who intellectually agrees with the plan (passing the first estate test) will have the moral character to actually carry through with it despite being in the "heat of the battle".  We are in the part of the test where we don't have all of our faculties available, like when morter explosions are crashing all around the soldier going back for his fallen companions, is his integrity strong enough to withstand those drives or does he value the life of his fellow soldier more than the desire to get out of harms way to save himself.  This is a test of character, knowledge is part of the character but may not include wisdom or spirituality.
     
    We are told to bring up our kids in truth and light.  Truth are the facts, light is the ability to discern the truth between different choices while in a state of darkness.  Light is the executive functioning, the character.  We already had the test of truth, now the focus is the light. Bringing it back to the OP, part of the test of character is emotion, computer like intelligence doesn't concern itself with emotional influences whereas the removal of those drives (under the veil) allows for a more specific test of emotion, of character.  This is why the greatest commandments have to do with the emotions of love and empathy. 
  4. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to james12 in Morality - A Question on approach:   
    This is not part of the gospel as believed by LDS people. The ends do not justify the means because we do not know all the consequences of our actions (which extend into the next life). A common hymn says, "do what is right let the consequence follow" because right is right regardless of earthly outcomes.
     
    I believe this hits closest to what we believe. In the Book of Mormon Moroni said, "For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing....Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift" (Moroni 7:6,10). God works from the inside out. He changes our hearts and we change our actions.
     
    Rules by themselves do not change a man. Nephi hit on this point when he said, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). We must begin with rules and consequences but they are not the end. At some point, they become dead. The law is designed to change us and lead us to follow Christ's way.
  5. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in The Great Apostasy: A Timeline   
    Who said I was posting anything as proof of anything or as a faith building message?  I have been posting long enough on this forum to realize that nothing anybody says here is proof of anything.  "Proof" always comes from the spirit when pondering truths.  It does not come from the amount of intellectual effort or the quantity of the gathering of information from men.  If that fact insults Catholics then my hope is that they do not depend on the teachings of men to understand God's will. At one point men also believed that the world is flat and that eating a tomato would kill someone.  At the time of those beliefs if anyone said that wasn't true, they were offended.  The reason we should praise the reformers as was previously stated is because they were not afraid to insult those in charge. I am not sure why you are so afraid of the cutting nature of truth.
     
    The truth seems to insult those that believe the opposite to the point of causing anger.  That has been pointed out by the Catholic religion many times over.  So, what is your point?  Am I supposed to be threatened by that?  Am I supposed to go run and hide for fear of being tortured by the great 'God-empowered' leaders of that Church?   If they are insulted instead of enlightened, that is their own prideful problem.  Insult comes from having contentious motives.  The truth is for all to hear, it doesn't have to be kept under a bushel so as to not "offend" anyone who is hurt by the light. Nowadays I don't have to worry about offending a Catholic Priest with my religious views and practice as did my ancestors who at the time of the Conquistadors had their cities and culture destroyed in the name of that insult.  We don't have to fear them like that anymore. LDS truths have been "insulting" to others from the moment Joseph Smith was told that all other religions were corrupt and to not join any of them.  If they don't want to be corrupt then have them come on over to the truth, they would be less angry and less easily insulted.  The only thing I could insult is a false belief, the false belief that the Catholic Church is run by God. If that insults the Catholic Church then so did Joseph Smith.  If we are having to draw the line, then I will stand with Joseph Smith.  You don't have to point out the line any further or be fearful of it, it has been there before you and I were around.  The line is already there, it is not insulting.
  6. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to The Folk Prophet in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    The Savior experienced both deaths upon the cross. Hence - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"
     
    From Jeffrey R. Holland:
    I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
  7. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to The Folk Prophet in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    I know I'm just jumping in here...but......
     
     
    Of course it can. First of all, we ALL die spiritually when we are separated from God coming to earth and physically no matter how righteous we are or are not, and none of us sinned to earn either of those. Death is punishment for sin does not equal sin is the only reason for death. And, as has (I believe) been pointed out (I haven't read every word of the above posts, but I think this was said), the Savior experienced death with no sin (both physically and spiritually).
     
     
    Who says death is a punishment in every case. It's obvious that it CAN be used as a punishment. But we all die physically, regardless of our worthiness, and the Savior, once again...ergo...death cannot possibly be ONLY a punishment.
     
     
    So...Jesus transgressed? Adam? Abraham? Isaiah? Joseph Smith? All transgressors in the pre-existence? I'm not buying.
     
    This is doctrinally unsupportable. It's a logical fallacy that depends on an unsupportable conclusion. C is only true if A and B are true. A. No one is punished for someone else's transgression = true. B. Death only comes as a result of transgression = FALSE.
     
     
    The entire philosophy herein is based on the idea that death is only a punishment. But the idea suffers from a variety of problematic logical turns. The biggest being the Savior's experience.
  8. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Matthew.Bennett in What are the Laws of the Terrestrial Kingdom?   
    Are you talking about two different things?  Mortal laws vs level of glory.
     
    There are laws that if lived while in mortality might qualify one for the Celestial kingdom and I think you are making reference to the lesser law associated with the lesser priesthood when refering to the Law of Moses.  Both of which are a set of laws that were given while here in mortality but that does not suggest they are laws of any given kingdom.  I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  Maybe you could reference where you get the understanding that mortal laws are continued in the kingdoms.
     
    Consider this, a person who finds their self in the Telestial Kingdom is one who has a level of glory and is not capable of breaking any law. In other words, a person in the Telestial Kingdom cannot sin.  What "eye for an eye" law could exist for a person who cannot sin? 
     
    I don't think any of the "laws" (meaning principles of truth) found in either the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms are different than the ones found in the Celestial Kingdom, only the Celestial Kingdom would have the full set of the laws whereas the lower kingdoms will not have all available to them.
  9. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Anddenex in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    In essence, I agree with your statement, however I haven't read any evidence that God recommend Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit.  Why would a perfect God recommend and then forbid Adam and Eve to partake  -- which would appear contradictory to me.
     
    I would agree God proposed the plan.  God provided us with knowledge regarding this plan.  The temple provides us with knowledge concerning the state of mind Adam had when he was placed in the garden...how then did Adam gain this knowledge regarding the tree? 
     
    I can't think of any reason as a Father where I would recommend something, and then forbid it later, but then again, this could be a celestial law by which I am unware of.
  10. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Anddenex in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    Joseph Fielding Smith; "“Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity. And they were placed in the Garden of Eden where there was no death and we read in the scriptures that they could have lived in that Garden forever, but not under the most favorable circumstances. For there, although they were in the presence of God, they were deprived of certain knowledge and understanding in a condition where they could not understand clearly things that were necessary for them to know. Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time. Mortality could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation. Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, forbidden in a rather peculiar manner for it is the only place in all the history where we read that the Lord forbade something and yet said, ‘Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself.’ He never said that of any sin. I do not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law. It had to be. And Adam came under a different law. The temporal law. And he became subject to death."
     
    What law did they violate?  The Garden of Eden law.  Which is why I am saying it seems that the eating of the tree of knowledge was the way out of the Garden of Eden.  God recommended that they not stay in the Garden of Eden forever. They could choose when they were ready to leave by violating the law of Paradise. Just like if I were to say that in my house my young adult children are under my rules.  If you cant follow my rules then leave the house and be on your own. They wouldn't have to break the rules to leave, they could simply say, 'I can't expect to become a responsible person if I don't get out on my own and therefore I am not willing to live under your wing forever'.
     
    They knew that they were going to be the "primal parents" and they knew that it was essential that their nature should change.  I can't imagine they would have just gotten those two statements alone without any further details as to what does "primal parent" mean and 'what does it mean to have our nature change'.   Change from what and how? would have certainly been part of the discussion and presented as part of the plan.  I am sure we all asked those questions without having the certain knowledge as President Smith says, this is knowledge of pain and sorrow; "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there."
     
    And Marion G. Romney; "Adam voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences, partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that men might be. … For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude"
     
    Where did Adam obtain that knowledge ahead of time for which we have an "immeasurable debt of gratitude"?  If it was anything less than following God's recommendation than I don't think we would be grateful for it. I don't think we would have a debt of gratitude for him going against God's plan.
  11. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Traveler in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    You brought up some interesting points and I thought perhaps we should start a new thread.  However, this thread is specifically about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   I have stated a number of times that I personally believe a great deal of information is missing from scripture and revelation concerning the tree.
     
    I do not believe G-d made up a tree and rules about the tree in an effort to trick mankind into the fall.  That just is not the sort of thing I understand about G-d.  Therefore I see the whole doctrine of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be symbolic.   The question is – What is the tree and what does it represent?
     
    We LDS know that the partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a pivotal, important and necessary part of The Father’s plan from the very inception of his plan.  Partaking of the tree and bringing about the fall was and has always been the plan.  And this is not a plan B – it is plan A from the start.
     
    I do not believe G-d makes up unjust or unnecessary laws.  I do not believe that G-d made up death to be associated with the tree just so mankind would have something to stumble into mortality with, talk, wonder about and forever ask questions.  I believe death is the only possible result for anyone engaged in understanding the knowledge of good and evil.  I believe G-d did not create the condition, choice or the result but rather in his wisdom he utilized the just and true principles in the only way they could be utilized for the benefit of those seeking such wisdom. 
     
    I have said this before – that it is reasonable to my thinking and rhetorical logic that all that have a mortal experience choose to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  It was not an Adam and Eve only choice.  I would also point out that every reference in scripture concerning fruit and commandments is symbolic and not associated with some tree anywhere.  I would also point out that having a mortal body in order to suffer physical and spiritual death is the only way in all eternity to come by the knowledge of good and evil.  I believe if there was another viable way G-d would have offered that possibility and even recommended it.
     
    And finally I would make a point about making “rules” in one’s home.   The idea of live by my rules or leave is, in my mind, the attitude of Satan rather than G-d.  I believe the attitude of G-d is to instruct concerning correct principles and let individuals govern themselves – meaning to achieve the blessings or suffer the consequences of principles and laws that are just and true and have no bearing on wants or desires.  As odd as it may seem to some – I believe Satan was excommunicated from the society of heaven.  Not for the benefit of the society of heaven but for the benefit of Satan.  Because Satan could not abide heavenly society of G-d any better than we could abide on the sun.  (see I can also use symbolism to put forth an idea)
  12. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Traveler in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    Hmmmm.   It is my understanding that Christ drank the bitter cup when he did not really want to.  Many would argue he did want to for reasons that were important to him.  But I think I understand because I have done things I did not want to because I believed and had faith that something worthwhile would come of it – and not just for me. 
     
    It is part of my understanding of discipline.   That we learn to do the right thing rather than do what we want thinking it is the right thing.  Some may not understand this difference and I am not about to make them understand – even though I often think I would really like to make them.
     
    Let me put it this way Seminary - I see the natural man as someone that does what they want - A saint of G-d is someone that has faith that what G-d as of them is what they really want even though they do not realize it yet.
  13. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Anddenex in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    I disagree with him not recommending it.  He did recommend it when He presented the plan to us in the war in Heaven.  He told us that we should come to this world, be separated from Him, receive a body and be tested here.  To say that He couldn't recommend it is, I think, incorrect.  We all chose His plan which included that step.
     
    This might be semantics, but I think He had to allow man to act on his own to bring this about.  I liken it to when a young adult is ready to leave the house of her parents.  The parents, being good parents, are not going to push the kid out of the house but at the same time might say 'if you are going to stay here then I forbid you to be out past 11 pm'.  There are certain rules the parents can state if the young adult is to stay with the parents.  Now, if she wants to leave and be on her own, fine, then she will have to really be on her own and be cut off from everything she enjoyed while with her parents. By doing it this way, the forward moving step of maturing is done by the person and therefore the reward for such a choice is truly theirs.  This is also why this act is not really a choice with punishment but a choice with restrictions and conditions.  We all agreed to live in a restricted and specific conditions related to mortality which are forbidden in a Celestial environment and this was all in accordance to God's recommended plan.
  14. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Traveler in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    We are given to know in the gospel that a spiritual fall and mortal experience was necessary for the plan of salvation.   Only those that were willing to experience a physical mortal experience and a spiritual fall being exiled from the presents of G-d the Father and his society of heaven could someday experience the glory of resurrection and exaltation.   The fall was and is one of the 3 greatest blessings made available to man.
  15. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to The Folk Prophet in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    We're really back to the same debate we've had before. We don't entirely agree. I do not believe mankind is equipped to interpret God's justice. So we obey. Yes, God cannot be just. But that doesn't mean He never does things that WE think are unjust. The scriptures and doctrines are full of examples of this. God does things that seem unjust to man all the time. And man, being foolish, therefore ignores God, relegates something He did or said to unimportant, or turns away from Him accordingly.
     
    But, like I said, we don't really entirely disagree.
  16. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    Doctrines of the Gospel Manual from LDS.org under "Chapter 8: The Fall" says; "
    Adam and Eve brought about the Fall by their own choice.
    Adam and Eve were commanded not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 2:15–17; Moses 3:15–17; Abraham 5:11–13)."
     
    I only see three ways to understand this but maybe there are others; either 1. They were commanded to never partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil under any circumstance. or 2. they were commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil if they intended to continue to partake of every other tree in the garden including the tree of life. or 3. they were given a choice to either partake of the tree of life with its consequences or partake of the tree of knowledge with its consequences making it a full knowledge choice.
     
    I think number 2 is correct.  That is my current understanding but I am not 100% sure.  The reason I think it is correct is because there are many places in the scriptures and writings of the church that call it a commandment (as opposed to choice A vs choice B, like option 3 above) and call Adams and Eve's act as disobedience.  Joseph Fielding Smith says this is a peculier situation, it is the only time God has said "I forbid" something but then follows with thou mayest choose.
     
    Smith also says;
    “We came into this world to die. That was understood before we came here. It is part of the plan, all discussed and arranged long before men were placed upon the earth. When Adam was sent into this world, it was with the understanding that he would violate a law, transgress a law, in order to bring to pass this mortal condition which we find ourselves in today” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:66).
     
    I think it had to be that way for a few reasons, one of which is so that God did not "create" this fallen world.  He created paradise and all in its perfect state but the Fall of Adam is what created this mortal state.  In this way the atonement corrects all the things the Fall did including all the changes to our body and the world around us are redeemed by the atonement.  If it was purely a choice then we would have to say that God created corruption and then gave Adam the choice to pursue corruption.  Adam would be no better than Lucifer if he actually chose corruption over paradise.
  17. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Anddenex in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    I may easily be oversimplistic, however, I honestly believe God to remain God needed to "forbid" because all things good come from God.
     
    In essence, the decision must have been brought to pass by us, and God being good, could not recommend something of this nature.  In other words, technically, he doesn' lead his children to sin, the exact opposite.
  18. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Blackmarch in Tree of knowledge of good and evil   
    So, if there are these two ways of looking at it, why do you think it had to be a commandment with which there could be disobedience as opposed to simply a choice with attached consequences? 
     
    As much as God has to be just to be God, He also can't work for two different outcomes.  He can't prepare the great and noble ones for certain acts and at the same time command them not to do it. I think He can still be just by saying, if you choose this, these are the circumstances; you will be out of my presence and you will have agency and accountability etc. If that is known ahead of time, then it is just after the choice is made.  Not sure why it has to be forbidden.  Unless what is forbidden is to eat of the tree of death when one wants to stay in the Garden.  Like Satan wanting his inheritance before going through the steps.  God is saying, you can't have knowledge of good and evil and freely eat from the Garden at the same time, that He forbids and commands against. But, they were given the option to live one way or the other when ready. 
  19. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Traveler in forgiveness of heinous sins   
    Whatever a person does with their agency is their choice.  My advice, though I as somewhat a hypocrite, is to have faith in the atonement, let justice find its course, be honest in our understanding but forgive others.  If it is our job to hunt down criminals in society – we do what we have been charged to do within the limits of the laws the govern us.  If we trust this life only for justice – we will become the enemy of eternal justice.
     
    When I meet my maker in the next life; my plan is the beg forgiveness for all my sins and plead for mercy.  I do not plan to accuse anyone of anything and trust that G-d will, in his mercy, deal justly with us all.  I plan to accept whatever he gives out with praise and thanksgiving – even that which is given to those that harmed me and those I love.  Why?  Because this is what I understand of Christ – so if I must suffer – so be it.
  20. Like
    Seminarysnoozer reacted to Traveler in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    The justice I am talking about is simple - everything that occurs to us (in this life, a previous life or in a following or next life, must be because of a knowledgeable choice that was made in order to bring about the result.  I do not believe that justice is the result of a choice we do not or cannot understand – especially concerning consequences.  Children before the age of accountability may be a good example of the kind of justice I believe to which you also may agree.  I just expand on the idea.   So if justice for us must be based on our choices such that all things that occur to us must be the result of a knowledgeable choice we make – otherwise justice does not exist and is an illusion. 
     
     
     
    I am sure there are many kingdoms for various purposes and needs.  Often the scriptures hint concerning things to which there is no actual doctrine.  A mother in Heaven is an example of this and we even sing of this possibility in the song “Oh my Father”.
     
    I find evidence in scripture that indicates that there is a place for fallen spirits over which Jesus has singular responsibility as G-d and as the mediator with the Father.  For example we see G-d (Jehovah or Jesus) governing not only earth but all the spirits in exile from the Father (Satan who was cast out of heaven – never to return among those over which Jesus governs.)
     
    Some think the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be a literal tree.  We know from revelation that the sister tree (The Tree of Life) that is also in the garden is symbolic and Alma speak to us of a seed that we plant that grows to become the tree of life.  In the Genesis epoch of the Garden Adam is warned that anyone that pursues the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil with intent to obtain this knowledge must of necessity be cast out from the father.  The indication is in the day, or as we can understand from the ancient Hebrew – at the time such a choice is made all making that choice will surely die.  We know this was not a physical death because Adam and Eve did not die right a way but much later – but they did die a spiritual death or death of being cast out or falling. 
     
    Since the fall took effect on all the children of Adam and Eve – I cannot find any scriptural evidence that we remained with the father but rather became from the fall ever beholden to Christ to redeem our return.  And so I submit that the choice by Adam and Eve was not unique among the children of G-d and that all that would come to earth to take on a mortal body in every way accepted for themselves the choice and all it consequences.
     
    So we are again upon the point that for us the fall is completely spiritual.  And all fallen spirits, including even small children are redeemed by Christ in order to return to the Father.  Our spirits are fallen and incapable of retuning on their own – regardless of how pure and clean we think them to be.  Without Christ the fallen spirits of children could not return to the father.  For me this is such a simple understanding.  All that choose to participate in the plan that was made before the foundations of the earth rely on Christ as their mediator to end our exile from G-d. 
     
    The spirit must fall in order to justly and rightfully inhabit a mortal body.  Only a redeemed spirit therefore can inhabit a glorified eternal body.  If the spirits of children had not fallen then such spirits could not be associated with a mortal body.  It is by the atonement of Christ that the fallen are made pure.  If there was no spiritual fall than there would be no knowledge of evil – nor is there knowledge of good.  Good being the sacrifice of Christ that knowledge can only come from those redeemed from the fall..  Therefore only by falling and choosing to fall can one obtain knowledge of good and evil.
     
     
     
     
     
    one last point - this is how I do multiple quotes.  I slect the quote button.  Then in he following box for response I create a quite block.  I delete all from the initial quote that I am not responding to in my first comments and copy that text into the quote box.  This can be repeted as many times as desired by moving text from the previous text to the new quote box.
  21. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in The ministering of angels   
    I think defining "minister" is also helpful as minister (verb) - simply means to attend to the needs of someone.  Does it have to be in person?  What would keep an angel from ministering to one's needs at a distance?
     
    In other words, would it be possible to have ministering angels that do their thing without anybody having to know about it?  Or is it something that has to be experienced by the receiver?
  22. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Sunday21 in Members Who Disrupt Lessons at Church   
    I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach.  I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places.  As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion.  There should never be a argumentative reaction.  (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum).
    I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through.  We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?"
     
    Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic.
     
    I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven.  So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.
  23. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Palerider in Members Who Disrupt Lessons at Church   
    I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach.  I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places.  As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion.  There should never be a argumentative reaction.  (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum).
    I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through.  We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?"
     
    Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic.
     
    I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven.  So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.
  24. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Members Who Disrupt Lessons at Church   
    I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach.  I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places.  As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion.  There should never be a argumentative reaction.  (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum).
    I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through.  We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?"
     
    Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic.
     
    I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven.  So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.
  25. Like
    Seminarysnoozer got a reaction from Backroads in Members Who Disrupt Lessons at Church   
    I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach.  I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places.  As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion.  There should never be a argumentative reaction.  (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum).
    I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through.  We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?"
     
    Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic.
     
    I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven.  So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.