Dinosaurs

[Arnolt]

Traveler: Only one thing that doesn't make me calm down and sleep... quote:"...to be revealed concerning the Kingdom of G-d."

Is there a special reason why you say or write "G-d" instead of "God"? This is not the first time I remember to have seen it. Is this a secret abbreviation I've never heard about? I'm sure you don't mean "Godzilla the Good" and you are on the Japanese's side... but who knows...? Kimigayo-wa, chi-yoni, yachi-yoni...

No, only a joke. But to be honest: is there a reason or is it only a failure in writing?

o-yasuminasai !

Edited June 25, 2012 by Arnolt

[Seminarysnoozer]

It looks like he has been banned but I suppose he might read this anyways. There are obviously a couple things that he doesn't understand about our religion. We believe that we are in a fallen state. What we have learned before this life began we can never approach in terms of our scientific development. The idea that we could reach God through scientific development, to one day make ourselves like Him without the saving grace of God is what he is asking us to consider as part of our gospel. We can't make that a part of our gospel because we believe in a Savior and with that we believe we have fallen and therefore need a Savior.

I think this idea of pulling ourselves up on our own without divine gifts but by learning and even if God were to help with the education comes about by not believing in a pre-mortal state in which we developed to maturity and spent much time in the presence of God learning all sorts of things including science. To relearn the things we have already learned is not the purpose of this life.

If fact learning is required for salvation then I think a person who believes such a thing would have to want to die at the peak of their understanding which for most would be in their 20s and 30s and hope not to die after the effects of senility took over. If knowledge was the saving possession then I wonder what a person would think of someone who dies with Alzheimers or a severe stroke or Down's syndrome or a child that dies after days of life. They would have to believe that people who die with less education which may be related to where they were born and lived has less of a chance to be with God than someone who is born into a more advanced country. What a disgusting God that would be if earthly knowledge base was the saving possession. It is sad that there needs be suppression of elitist dogma once again but I guess that is the cycle, about time for another round of destruction to dial down the pride.

[Traveler]

It looks like he has been banned but I suppose he might read this anyways. There are obviously a couple things that he doesn't understand about our religion. We believe that we are in a fallen state. What we have learned before this life began we can never approach in terms of our scientific development. The idea that we could reach God through scientific development, to one day make ourselves like Him without the saving grace of God is what he is asking us to consider as part of our gospel. We can't make that a part of our gospel because we believe in a Savior and with that we believe we have fallen and therefore need a Savior.

I think this idea of pulling ourselves up on our own without divine gifts but by learning and even if God were to help with the education comes about by not believing in a pre-mortal state in which we developed to maturity and spent much time in the presence of God learning all sorts of things including science. To relearn the things we have already learned is not the purpose of this life.

If fact learning is required for salvation then I think a person who believes such a thing would have to want to die at the peak of their understanding which for most would be in their 20s and 30s and hope not to die after the effects of senility took over. If knowledge was the saving possession then I wonder what a person would think of someone who dies with Alzheimers or a severe stroke or Down's syndrome or a child that dies after days of life. They would have to believe that people who die with less education which may be related to where they were born and lived has less of a chance to be with God than someone who is born into a more advanced country. What a disgusting God that would be if earthly knowledge base was the saving possession. It is sad that there needs be suppression of elitist dogma once again but I guess that is the cycle, about time for another round of destruction to dial down the pride.

Sometimes Seminarysnoozer - I read your posts and wonder. I think you and I have a language barrier even though we both speak English. For example, I do not see why your are concerned with someone who dies with Alzheimers or a severe stroke or Down's syndrome or a child that dies after days of life. None of these things are "with" us through death? At least I do not believe they are transient with death nor do I understand why you think such things important considerations.

I think we are to understand that the spirit that we list to obey does remain with us in death. Those that list to obey a lying or beguiling spirit - as I understand will have the same problem even after death. It does seem to me that such a problem can and does exist not just with the concept of "Is it really necessary for my salvation" spirit or a spirit that just lacks appreciation of truth.

And as Hugh Nibley would say - do not confuse facts with truth. Facts are truths that have been altered by opinion.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I do think it is okay and good (even necessary) to covet truth.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sometimes Seminarysnoozer - I read your posts and wonder. I think you and I have a language barrier even though we both speak English. For example, I do not see why your are concerned with someone who dies with Alzheimers or a severe stroke or Down's syndrome or a child that dies after days of life. None of these things are "with" us through death? At least I do not believe they are transient with death nor do I understand why you think such things important considerations.

I think we are to understand that the spirit that we list to obey does remain with us in death. Those that list to obey a lying or beguiling spirit - as I understand will have the same problem even after death. It does seem to me that such a problem can and does exist not just with the concept of "Is it really necessary for my salvation" spirit or a spirit that just lacks appreciation of truth.

And as Hugh Nibley would say - do not confuse facts with truth. Facts are truths that have been altered by opinion.

The Traveler

You misread my statement, I wasn't speaking of my beliefs. I was speaking of a person who seeks to exalt himself through education and learning as if that is the way to salvation. That was the message Arnolt was after if you read through his posts. He was pursuing this idea of needing to incorporate scientific knowledge with spiritual doctrine to improve upon it. Education is good but it has to be with the right motive with an eye single to the glory of God, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man, to do God's work but not for self exaltation.

President Eyring said; "The thirst for education 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 seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride.

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.

The Lord said:

“I give unto you a commandment that ye shall continue in prayer and fasting from this time forth.

“And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

“Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

“Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

“That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you” (D&C 88:76–80)."

The purpose of learning is so we can magnify the callings and responsibilities we are given. The things that we can learn here that are new to us come by way of faith in doing what we are told to do through divine inspiration and revelation not by learning scientific facts that we already learned in the life before.

[Traveler]

You misread my statement, I wasn't speaking of my beliefs. I was speaking of a person who seeks to exalt himself through education and learning as if that is the way to salvation. That was the message Arnolt was after if you read through his posts. He was pursuing this idea of needing to incorporate scientific knowledge with spiritual doctrine to improve upon it. Education is good but it has to be with the right motive with an eye single to the glory of God, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man, to do God's work but not for self exaltation.

President Eyring said; "The thirst for education 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 seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride.

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.

The Lord said:

“I give unto you a commandment that ye shall continue in prayer and fasting from this time forth.

“And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

“Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

“Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

“That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you” (D&C 88:76–80)."

The purpose of learning is so we can magnify the callings and responsibilities we are given. The things that we can learn here that are new to us come by way of faith in doing what we are told to do through divine inspiration and revelation not by learning scientific facts that we already learned in the life before.

Would it not be easier to agree that truth and knowledge (even scientific) should always be sought for in the most complete manner possible. But to seek or isolate partial knowledge for personal gain and exaltation (be it spiritual or scientific) obviously ignores essential and necessary truth - not just of self enlightenment but the greater good of the whole of society?

Why should it be any greater evil in the pursuit to gather "scientific" knowledge for personal aggrandizement than "spiritual" knowledge. By the very nature of the oxymoron it would seem more evil to seek "spiritual" things for personal aggrandizement.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Would it not be easier to agree that truth and knowledge (even scientific) should always be sought for in the most complete manner possible.

No, I would not agree to that statement because it may not be in the best interest of God's plan for me or for any given individual to spend their time gathering knowledge. That is up to God to decide for any one of us and to what degree. I think whenever the word "always" is used there is a good chance that type of statement will not be flexible enough to allow God's will to direct.

If a young adult, for example, decides to focus their time on earning that advanced degree over spending time dating and finding an eternal companion, there possibly are eternal consequences for that decision of seeking knowledge "always" in the most complete manner possible. If grandpa needs help on the farm and the grandchild decides education and knowledge is more important and so goes off to study over helping grandpa, there may be consequences to such action. The consequences could be positive or negative from a spiritual standpoint, but that would mean that we can't say "always" it is best to seek education.

If a person takes on a project of study that doesn't allow them to time enough to complete their visiting teaching or pulls them away from possibly serving a mission, there may be eternal consequences to such action. There may or may not be, that is why it is best to say that it should be done with an eye single to the glory of God. In such a manner, God can reveal to any person what course is best. The course that is best may not include devoting one's time to studying. It may be best for any given individual to raise 8 kids or take care of an elderly grandparent or simply work to feed the family or serve others.

What if the lesson in life for any given person is to learn how to endure in humility and how to endure through life's failures and sufferings. Or learn how to cope with a learning disability or disease that may not allow them to learn such as severe epilepsy. Then, in that case, that blanket statement of saying that truth and knowledge should be sought for in the most complete manner, at least in this life, would not be the right path.

I think when we end this life we will rarely find the case that the person's mission in life was to gather as much data, facts and secular learning as possible. There may be a few who's calling in life is to do something like that but it certainly is not the blanket calling for everyone.

The biggest problem I have with that approach is this idea that one of our purposes here is to gather secular knowledge. That simply is not true. If one spent their whole life gathering secular knowledge it would not even compare to the amount of knowledge gained before this life. That would be a waste of time. Or if one studies truths that really have no applicable value to one's mission in life, that would be a waste of time as well. For every person, that is different, of course. But because of that we can't make a blanket statement that it is "always" best to seek out knowledge in the most complete manner.

[Traveler]

No, I would not agree to that statement because it may not be in the best interest of God's plan for me or for any given individual to spend their time gathering knowledge. That is up to God to decide for any one of us and to what degree. I think whenever the word "always" is used there is a good chance that type of statement will not be flexible enough to allow God's will to direct.

If a young adult, for example, decides to focus their time on earning that advanced degree over spending time dating and finding an eternal companion, there possibly are eternal consequences for that decision of seeking knowledge "always" in the most complete manner possible. If grandpa needs help on the farm and the grandchild decides education and knowledge is more important and so goes off to study over helping grandpa, there may be consequences to such action. The consequences could be positive or negative from a spiritual standpoint, but that would mean that we can't say "always" it is best to seek education.

If a person takes on a project of study that doesn't allow them to time enough to complete their visiting teaching or pulls them away from possibly serving a mission, there may be eternal consequences to such action. There may or may not be, that is why it is best to say that it should be done with an eye single to the glory of God. In such a manner, God can reveal to any person what course is best. The course that is best may not include devoting one's time to studying. It may be best for any given individual to raise 8 kids or take care of an elderly grandparent or simply work to feed the family or serve others.

What if the lesson in life for any given person is to learn how to endure in humility and how to endure through life's failures and sufferings. Or learn how to cope with a learning disability or disease that may not allow them to learn such as severe epilepsy. Then, in that case, that blanket statement of saying that truth and knowledge should be sought for in the most complete manner, at least in this life, would not be the right path.

I think when we end this life we will rarely find the case that the person's mission in life was to gather as much data, facts and secular learning as possible. There may be a few who's calling in life is to do something like that but it certainly is not the blanket calling for everyone.

The biggest problem I have with that approach is this idea that one of our purposes here is to gather secular knowledge. That simply is not true. If one spent their whole life gathering secular knowledge it would not even compare to the amount of knowledge gained before this life. That would be a waste of time. Or if one studies truths that really have no applicable value to one's mission in life, that would be a waste of time as well. For every person, that is different, of course. But because of that we can't make a blanket statement that it is "always" best to seek out knowledge in the most complete manner.

I would submit that this very attitude of a smorgasbord approach to truth has resulted in more war, more inquisitions, more prejudice (religious and racial) and more human suffering and misuse of sacred creation than has the simple dedicated pure pursuit of unfiltered truth.

Let me take an example from your post quoted above:

I think when we end this life we will rarely find the case that the person's mission in life was to gather as much data, facts and secular learning as possible. There may be a few who's calling in life is to do something like that but it certainly is not the blanket calling for everyone.

Now I ask you - is this statement true?

There is a problem with the statement - the problem is that you do not seem to understand the difference between acquiring data and information and seeking truth.

How can it be true that understanding truth is not of eternal value - without seeking to know if it is true or not? The opposite of seeking truth is to seek lies. There is no option to seek some truth and ignore other truth that does not suit you. Such is the essence of lies.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

"When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people." --Abraham Joshua Heschel

Knowledge is good, but the greatest commandment is to love.

Why is it that in a discussion of truth we attempt to replace it with so many other things to discredit it?

If "Knowledge is good, but the greatest commandment is to love" this statement is true - then is not such a truth greater than love? If it is not greater than love then would not that truth be greater?

When I was a child in school I use to think some children were more intelligent than other children - until I discovered that in almost every case that I thought one was smarter than another it was only because one had studied the lesson and the other had not.

One of Aesop's Parables is called the parable of sourer grapes. In essence we tend to discredit that which we are too lazy to reach. Some in religion are too lazy to study science - so they discredit it and some in science are too lazy to study religion - so they discredit that. But those that will pay the price of truth -- by human nature will be the only ones that will appreciate that the effort was in truth - worth it.

The Traveler

[Sicily510]

1 Timothy 6:20-21

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

2 Ne. 26:20

And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

D&C 1:19

The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

Is science knowledge or experimental solutions that have been tested until accordingly to scientist methods proven evident or true from their hypothesis. Hypothesis is a logical guess or from dictionary.com

hy·poth·e·sis

   [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA

noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses  [-seez] Show IPA.

1.

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2.

a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3.

the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4.

a mere assumption or guess.

Hypothesis and faith are very similar yet very different, they are similar in the terms of no evidence in what's being asked or questioned yet very different because one has no foundation in Heavenly Fathers knowledge and the other is seeking in mens own understanding and solutions from a experiment and analytical result conclusion. One will be spiritual while the other is carnal, so it narrows down to which one is in the light of heavenly fathers glory and one in the light of mankinds own capacity which is limiting.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Sicily510

[Traveler]

Is science knowledge or experimental solutions that have been tested until accordingly to scientist methods proven evident or true from their hypothesis. Hypothesis is a logical guess or from dictionary.com

Hypothesis and faith are very similar yet very different, they are similar in the terms of no evidence in what's being asked or questioned yet very different because one has no foundation in Heavenly Fathers knowledge and the other is seeking in mens own understanding and solutions from a experiment and analytical result conclusion. One will be spiritual while the other is carnal, so it narrows down to which one is in the light of heavenly fathers glory and one in the light of mankinds own capacity which is limiting.

Interesting thought on faith. I thought to give a symbolical example of how faith seems to work for me.

In this example I will use electricity. Many people think they know a great deal about electricity - but at the micro level (quantum level) electricity is a great mystery, even to the most dedicated and brilliant minds that study such things. For all our modeling science really does not know if electrons are matter, energy or something else or some kind of combination. For all that we think we know we only know of electrons from their effects on other things. No one has actually seen or dealt with electrons without going through some kind of mediator. Often with my very scientific colleges I like to compare faith in G-d the Father to faith in electrons.

Many of us like to think we understand the divine and claim to have a personal relationship. I have a really hard time connecting with such claims - even if we are talking about prophets or children or the rest of us struggling through a mortal existence. I have had very personal conversations with apostles that in their witness seem to me to live with faith so much like the rest of us.

So how is faith in electrons similar to faith in G-d? Let me give an example. If someone that has faith in electricity walks into a dark room - rather than remain in darkness - they will find their way over to what we call a light switch in an effort of faith to turn on a light. They lack the knowledge of electricity but they have faith and believe if they use the switch they will have light. A person without faith will make no effort to switch a light on - they may pray for electricity to create light, they may cry out for light - they may hope for light but lack the faith of action necessary to turn on a light.

We can take this little parable even farther to understand faith when someone turns the switch to on and there still no light. A person of faith realizes and believes that either the light bulb is burned out or the power to the switch is missing. They do not think their effort worthless and give up on electricity. Their life being guided by faith - they use the knowledge they have gained through their experience to move forward in faith towards getting the light to work.

Strange as it may seem - I have found many scientist to be more faithful to their faith than I have found among those that claim to be passionate in religion.

The Traveler

[Over43]

Ah, dinosaurs, I am sorry I came late to the discussion, that's what I get for not lurking. I love dinosaurs, I love going to DNM in Eastern Utah. They are neat. They walked the Earth.

Why should we pay attention to them? Why do they matter? Because, they are part of the planets history.

I got to give the lesson two years ago on Genesis Chapter 1 in Gospel Doctrine. I started by saying something like: OK, we're talking Creation today, we'll stick to the lesson. If you have issues with Evolution that's fine, but I don't so we're sticking to the lesson. And we did.

Some years ago in Conference President Hinckley was specific in his statement that the Church takes no offical stance on Evolution, we are concerned about where men and women are going, not where we came from. I think that leaves the door open for a variety of beliefs on the subject.

And we call it the "Theory of Evolution" it can be described by the laws of Natural Selection as well as the science of genetics. Theory in name, but law in practice.

[Traveler]

...

I got to give the lesson two years ago on Genesis Chapter 1 in Gospel Doctrine. I started by saying something like: OK, we're talking Creation today, we'll stick to the lesson. If you have issues with Evolution that's fine, but I don't so we're sticking to the lesson. And we did.

...

If you taught a lesson on Genesis Chapter 1 - How did you cover verses 11 - 19 (days 3 and 4) of that chapter? How are those verses relevant to anything we understand or experience in plants that are alive and growing now?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would submit that this very attitude of a smorgasbord approach to truth has resulted in more war, more inquisitions, more prejudice (religious and racial) and more human suffering and misuse of sacred creation than has the simple dedicated pure pursuit of unfiltered truth.

Let me take an example from your post quoted above:

Now I ask you - is this statement true?

There is a problem with the statement - the problem is that you do not seem to understand the difference between acquiring data and information and seeking truth.

How can it be true that understanding truth is not of eternal value - without seeking to know if it is true or not? The opposite of seeking truth is to seek lies. There is no option to seek some truth and ignore other truth that does not suit you. Such is the essence of lies.

The Traveler

Your statements here are correct. I agree with you. But, your earlier statement was one that included seeking knowledge, not just truth. Also, as soon as you speak of eternal value then you are also speaking of the knowledge and truth gained before and after this life whereas I was just speaking of the pursuits in this life. Of course, I can't argue with that. The ultimate goal is to be like our Heavenly Father who has all knowledge and truth. But to gain all knowledge and truth in this life is not our pursuit (with emphasis on the word "all" and "in this life").

Jesus Christ often times had to refocus his disciples, don't worry about where you are going to get food and shelter, the evil for today is sufficient. Meaning we don't need to spend a lot of time focusing on things that will turn to dust in the end, focus on the things of real eternal value. In other words, the purpose of this life is not to master all the scientific pursuits possible, like food supply, production, clothing which was probably the "scientific" focus of their day. The more important lessons in life are not the ones which pertain to learning facts that will all come back to us once the veil is removed.

Tell me one scientific fact that you have learned in this life that you believe you didn't already know before this life began.

[Traveler]

Your statements here are correct. I agree with you. But, your earlier statement was one that included seeking knowledge, not just truth. Also, as soon as you speak of eternal value then you are also speaking of the knowledge and truth gained before and after this life whereas I was just speaking of the pursuits in this life. Of course, I can't argue with that. The ultimate goal is to be like our Heavenly Father who has all knowledge and truth. But to gain all knowledge and truth in this life is not our pursuit (with emphasis on the word "all" and "in this life").

Jesus Christ often times had to refocus his disciples, don't worry about where you are going to get food and shelter, the evil for today is sufficient. Meaning we don't need to spend a lot of time focusing on things that will turn to dust in the end, focus on the things of real eternal value. In other words, the purpose of this life is not to master all the scientific pursuits possible, like food supply, production, clothing which was probably the "scientific" focus of their day. The more important lessons in life are not the ones which pertain to learning facts that will all come back to us once the veil is removed.

Tell me one scientific fact that you have learned in this life that you believe you didn't already know before this life began.

I hope that you do not think of me as an antagonist - I like your thinking and your questions help be a great deal - especially as a sanity check. Thank you so much for your responses.

Now help me a little with this:

Jesus Christ often times had to refocus his disciples, don't worry about where you are going to get food and shelter

I do not think this is to be understood as general instructions to all disciples but rather as exclusive instructions specific to and only for those called as apostles (special witnesses - which would also apply to missionaries).

as to:

Tell me one scientific fact that you have learned in this life that you believe you didn't already know before this life began.

I will give you two - Pleasure and Pain.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I hope that you do not think of me as an antagonist - I like your thinking and your questions help be a great deal - especially as a sanity check. Thank you so much for your responses.

Now help me a little with this:

I do not think this is to be understood as general instructions to all disciples but rather as exclusive instructions specific to and only for those called as apostles (special witnesses - which would also apply to missionaries).

as to:

I will give you two - Pleasure and Pain.

The Traveler

Thanks.

Experiential knowledge is different than true fact learning. I asked you about scientific facts not experiential familiarity.

Are you sure about those two? If we shouted for joy before coming here, how far away from pleasure is that? And those that did not keep their first estate had wailing and gnashing of teeth which sounds pretty close to pain to me. But even then we are not really talking about experiences we are talking about knowledge of scientific facts. How can you know for sure that we did not understand the idea that there would be pleasure and pain in this world before coming here. And that we didn't study about what that would mean. As some of us maybe even assisted in creating the world and life, we didn't ask why there are dorsal root ganglions in the nervous system or why there are corpuscles on the skin? You don't think we understood the scientific knowledge pertaining to how the human brain would work even without yet experiencing it? You don't think that some were pulled away from the idea of coming here because they knew there would be suffering and pain here? If not, Lucifer missed a good talking point to pull people away from the plan. I think we knew all about the benefits and risks before coming here even without experiencing them we still had the scientific, practical knowledge about these things.

I would venture to say that we understood the workings of pleasure and pain more than we now understand them. We likely had a clearer picture of what that means before coming here just like a soldier studies the art of war before going onto the battle field. But what is learned on the battle field is not the science of the thing, it is the practical experience of how to act in a certain situation and that was my point.

That is why I am saying, spending our time learning scientific facts is not really what the purpose of this life is about it is to gain experiential knowledge. Both of your examples are directly pointing at that fact.

[mnn727]

There are pterodactyls on the wall of the creation room of either Manti or SLC Temples (been a while since I've been out west I don't remember which of those 2 it is)

[Traveler]

Thanks.

Experiential knowledge is different than true fact learning. I asked you about scientific facts not experiential familiarity.

Hmmmm - how can a scientific fact be established without experimental familiarity?

Are you sure about those two? If we shouted for joy before coming here, how far away from pleasure is that? And those that did not keep their first estate had wailing and gnashing of teeth which sounds pretty close to pain to me. But even then we are not really talking about experiences we are talking about knowledge of scientific facts. How can you know for sure that we did not understand the idea that there would be pleasure and pain in this world before coming here. And that we didn't study about what that would mean. As some of us maybe even assisted in creating the world and life, we didn't ask why there are dorsal root ganglions in the nervous system or why there are corpuscles on the skin? You don't think we understood the scientific knowledge pertaining to how the human brain would work even without yet experiencing it? You don't think that some were pulled away from the idea of coming here because they knew there would be suffering and pain here? If not, Lucifer missed a good talking point to pull people away from the plan. I think we knew all about the benefits and risks before coming here even without experiencing them we still had the scientific, practical knowledge about these things.

I would venture to say that we understood the workings of pleasure and pain more than we now understand them. We likely had a clearer picture of what that means before coming here just like a soldier studies the art of war before going onto the battle field. But what is learned on the battle field is not the science of the thing, it is the practical experience of how to act in a certain situation and that was my point.

That is why I am saying, spending our time learning scientific facts is not really what the purpose of this life is about it is to gain experiential knowledge. Both of your examples are directly pointing at that fact.

I thought sure you would immediately recognize my source - which would prove conclusively that neither were known (experienced) in our pre-existance.

In addition, my point is that any effort to exclude truth for any reason is from my observations (scientific and religious) has always ended in poor results both in the short term or eternal scheme of things. If one listens carefully to the instructions and covenants of exaltation (temple) they will learn that all truth is connected. I believe the specific phrase "all truth" is significant in that context to our discussion.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmmm - how can a scientific fact be established without experimental familiarity?

I thought sure you would immediately recognize my source - which would prove conclusively that neither were known (experienced) in our pre-existance.

In addition, my point is that any effort to exclude truth for any reason is from my observations (scientific and religious) has always ended in poor results both in the short term or eternal scheme of things. If one listens carefully to the instructions and covenants of exaltation (temple) they will learn that all truth is connected. I believe the specific phrase "all truth" is significant in that context to our discussion.

The Traveler

The whole plan of salvation is based in the idea that we don't have to experience all things for ourselves. Faith is the method in which scientific fact can be established without experiential familiarity. This is the power of inheritance. I can inherit the eternal knowledge if found worthy without having to recreate that knowledge myself. How is it possible that Jesus could feel the weight of all sins without experiencing it himself? Because experimentation is not necessary for all experience.

Faith is required with almost all things learned on Earth as well. Most scientific fact that we learn throughout the course of one's life has already been established by someone else experience. Even if one was a scientist and discovered something new, the bulk of which that finding rests is based in previously discovered fact and knowledge. I can know of the destructive power of a volcano without ever being destroyed by one. I can know that being struck by a car can be deadly without ever experiencing it myself. As we discussed this great plan I am sure that we were shown many things and even as we waited for our turn to come here shown many things.

This is exactly the problem with this belief, one of requiring experiential knowledge to establish true knowledge, it takes away the power of faith. Faith is sufficient in establishing knowledge in this life and the previous one.

[Traveler]

The whole plan of salvation is based in the idea that we don't have to experience all things for ourselves. Faith is the method in which scientific fact can be established without experiential familiarity. This is the power of inheritance. I can inherit the eternal knowledge if found worthy without having to recreate that knowledge myself. How is it possible that Jesus could feel the weight of all sins without experiencing it himself? Because experimentation is not necessary for all experience.

Faith is required with almost all things learned on Earth as well. Most scientific fact that we learn throughout the course of one's life has already been established by someone else experience. Even if one was a scientist and discovered something new, the bulk of which that finding rests is based in previously discovered fact and knowledge. I can know of the destructive power of a volcano without ever being destroyed by one. I can know that being struck by a car can be deadly without ever experiencing it myself. As we discussed this great plan I am sure that we were shown many things and even as we waited for our turn to come here shown many things.

This is exactly the problem with this belief, one of requiring experiential knowledge to establish true knowledge, it takes away the power of faith. Faith is sufficient in establishing knowledge in this life and the previous one.

I think we can summarize this “whole” discussion with the understanding that faith is the first step to knowledge - again I do not see why it is necessary (or possible) to differentiate scientific and religious truths. If one is interested in truth they must of necessity deal with both. There is no dividing line to be drawn that will definitively separate the whole of the two without creating an abuse of the truth - which is the engine of a lie.

I find it very interesting that we (LDS) believe that there is more to be revealed concerning the kingdom of G-d. That same article of faith states “we believe all things”. I interpret that to mean “All True Things”. I hope that is not a difficult concept to you and other LDS. It also says: if anything is of good report - we seek after such things. I do not think it evil or any disadvantage to seek truth.

Now along this line it is important to keep the context of things in mind - or as my father once taught me - you should not be reading the Book of Mormon while you are trying to play 2nd base in a softball game - pay attention to what you are doing and a focus on the task at hand. If you go to college - attempt to master every course you take - never have a mind set to just get by. The scriptures teach this truth as a time and a season for all things. As important a principle as prayer is - there is a time to pray and a time to act.

I firmly believe that to seek only religious or spiritual truths in this life - is a mistake as it is likewise to seek only “scientific” truths. As I have said before - such effort makes one extremely vulnerable to abuses of truths or in other words - lies. In fact, I know of no exceptions in history of science or religion. Do you know of any?

The Traveler

[Sicily510]

Study of secular things must be balanced by a study of spiritual things.

(K-6) What Knowledge Are the Saints Commanded to Obtain?

We cannot be saved in ignorance of the principles of exaltation in the kingdom of God. It is also true, however, that though establishing God’s kingdom should take top priority, the Saints should study and advance their knowledge in many areas (see D&C 88:78–79 ). Elder Spencer W. Kimball said of this concept:

“Secular knowledge, important as it may be, can never save a soul nor open the celestial kingdom nor create a world nor make a man a god, but it can be most helpful to that man who, placing first things first, has found the way to eternal life and who can now bring into play all knowledge to be his tool and servant. . . .

“. . . Can you see why we must let spiritual training take first place? . . . Can you see that the spiritual knowledge may be complemented with the secular in this life and on for eternities but that the secular without the foundation of the spiritual is but like the foam upon the milk, the fleeting shadow?

“Do not be deceived! One need not choose between the two but only as to the sequence, for there is opportunity for one to get both simultaneously; but can you see that the seminary courses should be given even preferential attention over the high school subjects; the institute over the college course; the study of the scriptures ahead of the study of man-written texts.” (In Life’s Directions, pp. 184, 190.)

President Brigham Young said: “There are a great many branches of education: some go to college to learn languages, some to study law, some to study physics, and some to study astronomy, and various other branches of science. . . . But our favorite study is that branch which particularly belongs to the Elders of Israel—namely, theology. Every Elder should become a profound theologian—should understand this branch better than all the world.” ( Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 258.)

The Lord instructed the early Saints of this dispensation to study a great variety of subjects so that they could have power to effectively carry forth His work and provide for their own needs (see D&C 88:78–79 ; 90:15 ; 93:53 ).

The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “Truth is ‘Mormonism’” ( Teachings, p. 139). His statement was later amplified by President Joseph F. Smith, who said: “We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1909, p. 7.)

The gospel does not encourage the Saints to limit their study only to religion. Though religious truth is most important, they should feel no limit in seeking all useful knowledge. President Brigham Young gave the following counsel to the Saints: “See that your children are properly educated in the rudiments of their mother tongue, and then let them proceed to higher branches of learning; let them become more informed in every department of true and useful learning than their fathers are. When they have become well acquainted with their language, let them study other languages, and make themselves fully acquainted with the manners, customs, laws, governments, and literature of other nations, peoples, and tongues. Let them also learn all the truth pertaining to the arts and sciences and how to apply the same to their temporal wants. Let them study things that are upon the earth, that are in the earth, and that are in the heavens.” (In Journal of Discourses, 8:9.)

If we keep our priorities correct, the Lord will give us power to obtain knowledge of all we desire that is for our good: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all else that is desirable, including the knowledge for which you yearn, shall be given unto you” (Joseph F. Smith, Juvenile Instructor, Oct. 1903, p. 627).

The scriptures and quotations from the Brethren cited above make it plain that all members of the Church are encouraged to continue the quest for knowledge and truth—in all fields—throughout our life. This quest may take us to colleges and universities or to vocational schools or apprenticeship training. Education that better prepares us to gain meaningful employment and to care for our family is especially important and should be given high priority in our life.

But sometimes members feel that spiritual education must be set aside for a time because of the demands of secular education. Some institute students will drop their religion classes, saying they cannot keep up with their other studies. Some graduate students neglect scripture reading and sometimes even Church attendance because of the press of their other studies.

Such decisions are short-sighted and suggest that we do not fully understand the process of gaining truth. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Truth and the source of all light and knowledge (see D&C 88:11 ; 93:26 ). If we deliberately choose to ignore the source of truth in setting priorities, we will to that extent be walking in darkness, no matter how much intellectual knowledge we may acquire. Gaining secular knowledge while ignoring spiritual knowledge often causes us to have more confidence in ourself or in the teachings of the world than in revelation. The prophet Jacob warned of that condition when he said it was good for people to be learned “if they hearken unto the counsels of God” ( 2 Nephi 9:28–29 ). He also pointed out that those who are “puffed up because of their learning” are among those the Lord “despiseth” ( v. 42 ). This should lead us to be sober as we set our priorities in education. Unless individuals are willing to recognize their need for God’s knowledge and their inability to get that on their own—Jacob called this recognition considering oneself a fool before God—God “will not open unto them,” and “the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever” ( vv. 42–43 ).

The Doctrine and Covenants supports this concept. The commandments there suggest a balance: “Seek learning, even by study, and also by faith” ( D&C 88:118 ). And when the Saints teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom with diligence, they gain access to the grace of God and then are “instructed more perfectly” in the disciplines of the world ( D&C 88:78 ).

As President Kimball said, we are not being asked to choose between secular and spiritual learning, only that we keep them in the right perspective and priority.

(K-7) The Process by Which One Gains Knowledge and Intelligence

As with the acquisition of all character traits and skills, obtaining knowledge is a process of growth by small increments. One learns best “line upon line, precept upon precept” ( D&C 98:12 ; 128:21 ; 2 Nephi 28:30 ; Isaiah 28:10 ). One grows from small to great, from simple to more difficult, from milk to meat (see D&C 19:22 ; 50:40 ; 1 Corinthians 3:2 ; Hebrews 5:12–14 ). The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it” ( Teachings, p. 305).

The Lord counseled that those who have understanding instruct those who do not (see D&C 88:77–79, 118 ; 43:8 ). He has also told His people to obtain knowledge by their own study (see D&C 90:15 ; 130:18–19 ), and to obtain a knowledge of the truth of His teachings by applying them (see John 7:17 ). In the Doctrine and Covenants we are commanded to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” ( D&C 88:118 ).

The case of Oliver Cowdery is helpful in understanding what the Lord meant when He said to seek learning by study and faith. During the translation of the Book of Mormon, Oliver sought to translate and was granted the privilege by the Lord. His attempt failed, however. The Lord then taught him an important principle. To understand the characters on the plates he was attempting to translate, Oliver should have studied them in his mind, drawn conclusions, and then asked the Lord for confirmation. If his heart was right, he would recognize by inward feelings the rightness or wrongness of his decision. Through this same process all may learn by study and by faith. Such learning comes when diligent effort to study a principle is followed by revelation that confirms truth, expands knowledge, and teaches relationships and applications, or else indicates that the decision is not the correct one.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “God is the source of all wisdom and understanding” and that “the best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching” ( Teachings, pp. 55; 191; see also Notes and Commentary on D&C 88:117–41 ). The Lord has often indicated that those who humble themselves and hearken to His word will be given great knowledge (see D&C 1:28 ; 76:5–10 ; 89:18–19 ; 93:28 ; 136:32 ). Those who are obedient to the Lord are able to receive and understand communications from the Spirit and in that way obtain knowledge. It is the “light of Christ” that enlightens their eyes and quickens their understanding (see D&C 88:11 ). The Lord said to Hyrum Smith, “I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind” ( D&C 11:13 ). This enlightenment comes not without great effort from the learner, however. The scriptures say that one receives intelligence through “diligence and obedience” ( D&C 130:19 ). “Light and truth forsake that evil one” ( D&C 93:37 ). So must the seeker of light and truth, for “intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light” ( D&C 88:40 ).

(K-8) Summary

Nothing can hinder the Lord from “pouring down knowledge from heaven” upon righteous seekers of truth ( D&C 121:33 ). The Lord has promised His people that if they will ask in worthiness (see D&C 50:29–30 ), they will receive “revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge” ( D&C 42:61 ). He told the elders of His Church that they were to be “taught from on high” ( D&C 43:16 ). The Lord truly will teach and lead by revelation those who hearken to His words. He will not, however, teach by revelation that which we can obtain by our own efforts. Revelation supplements and enhances our diligent efforts (see D&C 9:7–9 ; 130:19–21 ). The Doctrine and Covenants bears witness that God commands His children to gain knowledge, to educate themselves, and to progress in their acquisition of truth, but it also teaches the way to do that most profitably.

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual - Enrichment K - "Seek Learning, Even by Study and Also by Faith""Seek Learning, Even by Study and Also by Faith"

This is so true, I love it I love all this information that the church teaches because during my high school years I was on the verge of dropping out, I was irate of the history of America with its slavery, colonizing, womans suffrage, but the gospel instilled understanding that I will come to learn of mankinds natures and deeds and not agree. Although I didn't agree with what was being taught because I was bothered, I was able to be tolerant to learn of this nature. I realized that it wasn't just America that undergoes this type of nature but this is exactly taught since the days of the Old Testament. As much as secular knowledge is being taught without the foundation of the gospel I don't think I would be as tolerant or understanding as I am today. Tolerance isn't to grasp an agreement with those who oppose the principles of the LDS faith, but to endure their differences in a manner that will not influence ones knowledge of what's spiritually and purely right, I want to proclaim this church to be a true church. It enlightened me spiritually and whenever I am amongst a secular understanding I'm able to learn yet knowing what I've learned from the gospel of Jesus Christ to be priority.

[Traveler]

This is so true, I love it I love all this information that the church teaches because during my high school years I was on the verge of dropping out, I was irate of the history of America with its slavery, colonizing, womans suffrage, but the gospel instilled understanding that I will come to learn of mankinds natures and deeds and not agree. Although I didn't agree with what was being taught because I was bothered, I was able to be tolerant to learn of this nature. I realized that it wasn't just America that undergoes this type of nature but this is exactly taught since the days of the Old Testament. As much as secular knowledge is being taught without the foundation of the gospel I don't think I would be as tolerant or understanding as I am today. Tolerance isn't to grasp an agreement with those who oppose the principles of the LDS faith, but to endure their differences in a manner that will not influence ones knowledge of what's spiritually and purely right, I want to proclaim this church to be a true church. It enlightened me spiritually and whenever I am amongst a secular understanding I'm able to learn yet knowing what I've learned from the gospel of Jesus Christ to be priority.

As much as I love the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejoice in meeting with the saints - I have been most concerned with my personal experiences and my understanding of history. The reason is that it does appear to me that those that become caught up in religious fervor have more often than not, sought to oppress those that are devout to religious notions and interpretations of the same reference of scripture that is contrary to theirs. Those that become caught up in scientific fervors seem to me to be more restrained and reserved towards those that have arrived to different conclusions.

It seems to me that I have had more harsh discussions over the nature of G-d with religious peoples that believe in G-d than I have had in discussions of the same topic with those that do not believe in any G-d at all. I do not understand this

But then I have been around the world and have met with many people of different politics, religion and even scientific thought. As odd as all of this seems - it does surprise me that on occasion even among LDS I have found harsh attitudes when one encounters another LDS interpreting “scripture” differently. Also there seem to be more discord among devout “Christians” here in the USA than I have found in other places.

But most of all I have found more opposition to truth from those claiming to be religious. Usually because simple truth is either discarded as “unnecessary” for their particular brand of salvation or even considered contrary to proper worship of G-d. I honestly do not know how to better respond to such disregard of truth than to make some effort to defend truth. I understand that there are priorities to truth - especially for that which is spiritual. But I do not understand why anyone should be called upon to defend the truth before the saints of G-d - even if such truth are scientific and not spiritual.

If a person cannot see the obvious light of truth in scientific pursuits that can be so simply tested and demonstrated - how can they be trusted to appraise correctly spiritual truths that can be most difficult to understand or demonstrate?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think we can summarize this “whole” discussion with the understanding that faith is the first step to knowledge - again I do not see why it is necessary (or possible) to differentiate scientific and religious truths. If one is interested in truth they must of necessity deal with both. There is no dividing line to be drawn that will definitively separate the whole of the two without creating an abuse of the truth - which is the engine of a lie.

I find it very interesting that we (LDS) believe that there is more to be revealed concerning the kingdom of G-d. That same article of faith states “we believe all things”. I interpret that to mean “All True Things”. I hope that is not a difficult concept to you and other LDS. It also says: if anything is of good report - we seek after such things. I do not think it evil or any disadvantage to seek truth.

Now along this line it is important to keep the context of things in mind - or as my father once taught me - you should not be reading the Book of Mormon while you are trying to play 2nd base in a softball game - pay attention to what you are doing and a focus on the task at hand. If you go to college - attempt to master every course you take - never have a mind set to just get by. The scriptures teach this truth as a time and a season for all things. As important a principle as prayer is - there is a time to pray and a time to act.

I firmly believe that to seek only religious or spiritual truths in this life - is a mistake as it is likewise to seek only “scientific” truths. As I have said before - such effort makes one extremely vulnerable to abuses of truths or in other words - lies. In fact, I know of no exceptions in history of science or religion. Do you know of any?

The Traveler

I am not sure why you equate having a certain focus with rejection. Just because I am saying that there are certain things in this life that we should be spending time learning and others that, in general, are not worth our effort, you equate that with the rejection of truth. I think you are pushing my comments to some extreme that I am not. I think, Traveler, you have a tendency to take things in an all or nothing fashion and miss the point. Our focus in this life should be on spiritual matters, treasures in heaven as earthly treasures turn to dust. This also applies to earthly learning that does not have any spiritual content.

If I studied, for example, the various methods of masturbation, you think that would hold the same value as studying the scriptures, if you believe that all truth is equal in its value? Or if I spent hours and hours on the art form of tattooing that that would be just as valuable as studying food storage? Or if I spent my time on perfecting the technique and science behind making alcohol that that would be just as valuable as learning the history of the church? I disagree with that notion. I think there are things that are much more valuable in this life than man related or earthly and temporal related truths that have very little eternal value whatsoever. I am not sure why you have a hard time distinguishing those truths. They still may be truths but I am sure of the idea that the admonition of our leaders has been to focus on certain truths. But to maintain a certain focus does not mean "rejection", I would hope that you could see that. I can still believe "all" true things without wasting my time on truths that have very little eternal value.

If you think "by necessity we have to deal with both truths" then you are stating no desire to distinguish the relative value of these truths. And I think that is the one of the main purposes of this life, to practice our ability to discern the relative value of all truths and therefore learn judgement of good and evil. Judgement of good and evil or to know good and evil becomes a scale of shades of grey, not just an ability to distinguish black from white as you are suggesting it be - truth from lies. I may be able to spout out the truth of who won all the world series in the past century but really? that is as valuable as knowing the teachings of prophets? They both are truths. The previous life was the time to deal with all truths, all scientific facts. This life is to learn how to distinguish where our heart lies, where we find value. How one spends their time in this life is an attestation of where their heart is. And that is how God will, in part, determine where we go in the next life. That is what is meant by having an eye single to the glory of God. If there is some reason to learn some odd scientific fact so that the purpose of God might be advanced in this life, then yes that becomes valuable for that person as directed by the spirit. But it is not for all to seek all knowledge and truth in this life with the same intensity and giving of one's heart to the focus if it only contains very little eternal value compared to pursuits of greater eternal value.

I think there are many members, and I am surrounded by them as every one of my adult family members have gone on to higher degrees of learning, who falsely hold onto the notion that because they are spending time learning some scientific truth that they are doing God's work. I think this carries a potential for not placing one's heart in the right place. This has the potential to cause the cycle of ever learning but never really coming to an understanding and becoming blind to eternal truths. Jesus saw that pattern in those who were "learned" in his day. Knowledge itself is not evil just like money is not evil. It is the love of it over heavenly treasures that becomes evil.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

I am not sure why you equate having a certain focus with rejection. Just because I am saying that there are certain things in this life that we should be spending time learning and others that, in general, are not worth our effort, you equate that with the rejection of truth. I think you are pushing my comments to some extreme that I am not. I think, Traveler, you have a tendency to take things in an all or nothing fashion and miss the point. Our focus in this life should be on spiritual matters, treasures in heaven as earthly treasures turn to dust. This also applies to earthly learning that does not have any spiritual content.

If I studied, for example, the various methods of masturbation, you think that would hold the same value as studying the scriptures, if you believe that all truth is equal in its value? Or if I spent hours and hours on the art form of tattooing that that would be just as valuable as studying food storage? Or if I spent my time on perfecting the technique and science behind making alcohol that that would be just as valuable as learning the history of the church? I disagree with that notion. I think there are things that are much more valuable in this life than man related or earthly and temporal related truths that have very little eternal value whatsoever. I am not sure why you have a hard time distinguishing those truths. They still may be truths but I am sure of the idea that the admonition of our leaders has been to focus on certain truths. But to maintain a certain focus does not mean "rejection", I would hope that you could see that.

Several years ago a fellow by the name of Chris and I had a public debate over the existence of G-d. Chris being the president of the official atheist society in Utah. Chris is a a interesting guy and he and I have worked together both in our professions and on certain laws being considered before the Utah legislature. The debates took place over a number of weeks during our lunch hour.

After some time - it seemed to me that, in our debate Chris was missing very critical points that I had made and he seemed to be creating arguments that in reality were not really connected to the discussion specific to the existence of G-d. So I asked Chris to define the intent and extent of his understanding of G-d to which he believed could not possibly exist.

This request proved to be most critical to our discussion. I found that as Chris expressed his notions of G-d that I did not believe what he was expressing any more than he did.

I feel the same about our discussion of truth. It appears that there is enough of a disconnect between our separate notions of truth as well as the methods necessary to arrive at a comprehension, understanding and appreciation of truth that it would be impossible for me to defend what I think I now understand as your notions of what is truth from your above statements. Quite frankly I do not believe that some of your assertions of what should be considered truth as stated above; are indeed truth. Such concepts appear to fall into what I have previously retorted as partial truths.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I feel the same about our discussion of truth. It appears that there is enough of a disconnect between our separate notions of truth as well as the methods necessary to arrive at a comprehension, understanding and appreciation of truth that it would be impossible for me to defend what I think I now understand as your notions of what is truth from your above statements. Quite frankly I do not believe that some of your assertions of what should be considered truth as stated above; are indeed truth. Such concepts appear to fall into what I have previously retorted as partial truths.

The Traveler

I agree as I was never really describing what or what isn't truth or even methods to comprehend or understand truth. My discussion was based on your statement of seeking truth in all of its areas no matter what the topic or subject. That was my only discussion. If you want to talk about how it is obtained, I agree that is a different subject. I have a love for truth, all truth and have a desire to obtain all truth. At the same time I have an appreciation for the need to distinguish which truths are valuable to me at this time. You are arguing against any such distinction, that all truth is equally important NOW. We are talking about our choices here in mortality so we are only talking about the importance of certain truths pertaining to this existence.

But here is the thing that I think you have a hard time with and may disagree with me, that we have a limited time here on earth and that we have obtained many if not most secular learning type truths before this life began. If those two things are true, that we have learned many many things before coming here, likely more than all the scientist put together could amass over the lifetime of this mortal realm and we only have a limited time individually to gather the truths necessary to accomplish our individual missions on earth then I would think it prudent to spend time seeking truths that are relevant to our specific mission and not wasting time on things that likely we already understood well before coming here and will regain immediately upon having the veil lifted. If you agree with me on that, which may or may not be the case then I think that would go against the idea of seeking all truth no matter what the topic with equal vigor and time commitment during our short stay in mortality.

The gradation of the value of the truth is not on a scale of true or partially true, I am only speaking of grading the truth that is relevant and pertinent to our individual missions on earth which would have to include keeping an eye single to the glory of God, not the glory of man. If you are not willing to make that distinction then I can see how you would prefer to seek all knowledge and truth all the time without any need to determine if it is worth the time and effort now. So, like I said, then you could not distinguish the value of learning, scientifically, how to make recreational alcohol from learning the teachings of the prophets. You couldn't make that distinction if you strongly hold to the idea that all truth is just as valuable to us now as any other truth, so long as it is true.