Dinosaurs

[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.

Again let me therefore be specific in why I believe there is a major disconnect: Take this statement for example

If I studied, for example, the various methods of masturbation, you think that would hold the same value as studying the scriptures

The statement is so full of flaws and misdirection it is impossible to respond to within the frame work of what I understand as truth. In both cases you have chosen to use partial truths to make a point that I do not believe has anything to do with truth. In your example of studying various methods of masturbation - you have left out an entire spectrum of how masturbation can affect an individual, a courtship, a marriage relationship, the raising of children, society and politics both in regards to things physical and spiritual. To be brutally honest - if you are not prepared to handle the truth in regards to masturbation you will likely find great difficulty in raising children with respect and honor for truth in this society - regardless of how much time you spend away from your family personally studying scriptures.

But I am not done. 2000 years ago a group known as the Pharisees placed the study of scripture as the highest order and means of obtaining truth and used what they learned as an excuse to crucify the very Christ! Thus from your example, it is very easy to rhetorically demonstrate that in at least this one case (and one counter example disproves a definitive statement) it would have been better for someone to learn of various methods of masturbation than to have wasted their time studying scriptures but never coming to a understanding of the truth. I think the expression used by Christ is that it would have been better had a millstone placed about their nicks and cast into the sea.

But now, our discussion of truth as taken a turn where truth is so misused that our entire discussion has been diverted from truth into partial truth - so much that truth is almost impossible to understand and therefore impossible to properly defend. The reality is that with truth - there is no middle ground - there is no gray area or partial truths. There is no “higher” or lower truth or circumstance truth. There is no better truth now and some other truth better later. We either deal with in every moment with the “real thing” or we are left to wonder and be confused with counterfeits, copies, imitations and knockoffs. Yet it is my critical understanding of these elements of truth that you seem to criticize the most.

One very important lesson I have learned by very sad experience is that anyone that devalues truth - any truth - does not, in truth, know the truth of what they do.

Yes indeed, for me truth is a very black or white thing. It is like light or darkness - it is either true or false there is no partial, gray, or other option. I have not in truth, in my quest for truth, found a single contrary example - not one. Every time I have convinced myself otherwise - I have eventually been caught in a lie.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Again let me therefore be specific in why I believe there is a major disconnect: Take this statement for example

If I studied, for example, the various methods of masturbation, you think that would hold the same value as studying the scriptures

The statement is so full of flaws and misdirection it is impossible to respond to within the frame work of what I understand as truth. In both cases you have chosen to use partial truths to make a point that I do not believe has anything to do with truth. In your example of studying various methods of masturbation - you have left out an entire spectrum of how masturbation can affect an individual, a courtship, a marriage relationship, the raising of children, society and politics both in regards to things physical and spiritual. To be brutally honest - if you are not prepared to handle the truth in regards to masturbation you will likely find great difficulty in raising children with respect and honor for truth in this society - regardless of how much time you spend away from your family personally studying scriptures.

But I am not done. 2000 years ago a group known as the Pharisees placed the study of scripture as the highest order and means of obtaining truth and used what they learned as an excuse to crucify the very Christ! Thus from your example, it is very easy to rhetorically demonstrate that in at least this one case (and one counter example disproves a definitive statement) it would have been better for someone to learn of various methods of masturbation than to have wasted their time studying scriptures but never coming to a understanding of the truth. I think the expression used by Christ is that it would have been better had a millstone placed about their nicks and cast into the sea.

But now, our discussion of truth as taken a turn where truth is so misused that our entire discussion has been diverted from truth into partial truth - so much that truth is almost impossible to understand and therefore impossible to properly defend. The reality is that with truth - there is no middle ground - there is no gray area or partial truths. There is no “higher” or lower truth or circumstance truth. There is no better truth now and some other truth better later. We either deal with in every moment with the “real thing” or we are left to wonder and be confused with counterfeits, copies, imitations and knockoffs. Yet it is my critical understanding of these elements of truth that you seem to criticize the most.

One very important lesson I have learned by very sad experience is that anyone that devalues truth - any truth - does not, in truth, know the truth of what they do.

Yes indeed, for me truth is a very black or white thing. It is like light or darkness - it is either true or false there is no partial, gray, or other option. I have not in truth, in my quest for truth, found a single contrary example - not one. Every time I have convinced myself otherwise - I have eventually been caught in a lie.

The Traveler

You are the only one making an attempt to describe what is truth versus partial truths or not. I have not made that attempt. I was only commenting on your suggestion that all truth is equally as important to us at the moment no matter the category. Again, even Jesus suggested there are some things we shouldn't worry or put our efforts in, but those things were not lies or deceptions, they were truths still. Cleaning the house may be less important than listening to the teachings of Christ when He visits, for example. Cleaning the house is not a lie or a partial truth.

Luke 10 " 38 ¶Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

You are trying to suggest that there is no "good part" even though Jesus clearly uses the term. If all truth and right is equally right, then there is no such thing as a "good part". I think it was David O. Mackay, could have been another prophet that said the gospel is to make bad men good and good men better. Well, if it to make "good men better" then clearly there is an in between state that is not black or white. Your suggestion that everything should and can be categorized in such a way, now, in our current state of knowledge is not realistic at all. I would let God make that dividing cut, that separation of the wheat from the tares in such a clearly defined way as we do not know all the variables now. That is not a statement for the dislike of the dividing, it will happen, just not now. Right now it is a mixed state, both body and spirit, both corrupt and in-corrupt.

If we are here to deal with the "real thing" then for you what is the purpose of the veil?

I disagree with your notion that our test in life and our purpose in life is to deal with the "real thing". We are supposed to deal with the partial truths and the deceptions. Even Nephi was okay with not knowing all. He understood that that is not the quest of this life. How can dealing with the "real thing" and performing a test of faith co-exist. You would have to leave some room for the thing you don't think has to happen which is to learn line upon line, part upon part and allow for a time where the whole is not possible or obtainable. That is not a process of devaluing all truth. I think you misjudge my saying such things. It is only to know that we can only run so fast and we are only given a certain set of stewardship and not all.

It would be wrong to say 'I am not going to deal with the 5 talents given unless I have all the talents possible'. We each are given a portion, and there was a reason for that, it has to do with the test we face at the moment which is not a test that would require knowing all and dealing with the "real thing". It is a test of the desire of the heart whether the whole truth or partial truths are obtained is immaterial to that test of the desire of the heart. The whole truth and having all pure truths are not necessary for the test. We can still have the test with only a set of the truths. And, again, that is not a statement of devaluing all the truth or desiring to one day have all the truth it is simply an understanding of our current situation and what is valuable at the moment.

Having all truth by itself would not be saving. I know that to be a fact, otherwise this life would not be a necessary step for some of us. There has to be a component of becoming like God that requires a certain purpose, motivation and desire of the heart. Those things can occur irregardless of the amount of truth or partial truths. Part of our test is to see if we will do the right things in the setting of being behind a veil. So, again, I would ask, why was a veil placed if we are supposed to only deal with the "real thing" and not supposed to deal with counterfeits or partial truths?

[Traveler]

You are the only one making an attempt to describe what is truth versus partial truths or not. I have not made that attempt. I was only commenting on your suggestion that all truth is equally as important to us at the moment no matter the category. Again, even Jesus suggested there are some things we shouldn't worry or put our efforts in, but those things were not lies or deceptions, they were truths still. Cleaning the house may be less important than listening to the teachings of Christ when He visits, for example. Cleaning the house is not a lie or a partial truth.

Luke 10 " 38 ¶Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

You are trying to suggest that there is no "good part" even though Jesus clearly uses the term. If all truth and right is equally right, then there is no such thing as a "good part". I think it was David O. Mackay, could have been another prophet that said the gospel is to make bad men good and good men better. Well, if it to make "good men better" then clearly there is an in between state that is not black or white. Your suggestion that everything should and can be categorized in such a way, now, in our current state of knowledge is not realistic at all. I would let God make that dividing cut, that separation of the wheat from the tares in such a clearly defined way as we do not know all the variables now. That is not a statement for the dislike of the dividing, it will happen, just not now. Right now it is a mixed state, both body and spirit, both corrupt and in-corrupt.

If we are here to deal with the "real thing" then for you what is the purpose of the veil?

I disagree with your notion that our test in life and our purpose in life is to deal with the "real thing". We are supposed to deal with the partial truths and the deceptions. Even Nephi was okay with not knowing all. He understood that that is not the quest of this life. How can dealing with the "real thing" and performing a test of faith co-exist. You would have to leave some room for the thing you don't think has to happen which is to learn line upon line, part upon part and allow for a time where the whole is not possible or obtainable. That is not a process of devaluing all truth. I think you misjudge my saying such things. It is only to know that we can only run so fast and we are only given a certain set of stewardship and not all.

It would be wrong to say 'I am not going to deal with the 5 talents given unless I have all the talents possible'. We each are given a portion, and there was a reason for that, it has to do with the test we face at the moment which is not a test that would require knowing all and dealing with the "real thing". It is a test of the desire of the heart whether the whole truth or partial truths are obtained is immaterial to that test of the desire of the heart. The whole truth and having all pure truths are not necessary for the test. We can still have the test with only a set of the truths. And, again, that is not a statement of devaluing all the truth or desiring to one day have all the truth it is simply an understanding of our current situation and what is valuable at the moment.

Having all truth by itself would not be saving. I know that to be a fact, otherwise this life would not be a necessary step for some of us. There has to be a component of becoming like God that requires a certain purpose, motivation and desire of the heart. Those things can occur irregardless of the amount of truth or partial truths. Part of our test is to see if we will do the right things in the setting of being behind a veil. So, again, I would ask, why was a veil placed if we are supposed to only deal with the "real thing" and not supposed to deal with counterfeits or partial truths?

I believe you are making my point. In the quest for truth we should not do as Martha (in your example) that made her decision on a subset of what she thought was important. But rather as Jesus suggested that she be more open to "other" elements being considered by Mary. It appears to me that Jesus is saying it is better to be more open to all that is true and to consider things beyond what we think may be important (or necessary for salvation) at the time.

Which is what I have tried to say all along. As soon as we want to construct a definition of truth based on partial information especially to the exclusion of truthful things - we will as Martha did - come to a wrong conclusion.

Thanks for making my point more clear.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe you are making my point. In the quest for truth we should not do as Martha (in your example) that made her decision on a subset of what she thought was important. But rather as Jesus suggested that she be more open to "other" elements being considered by Mary. It appears to me that Jesus is saying it is better to be more open to all that is true and to consider things beyond what we think may be important (or necessary for salvation) at the time.

Which is what I have tried to say all along. As soon as we want to construct a definition of truth based on partial information especially to the exclusion of truthful things - we will as Martha did - come to a wrong conclusion.

Thanks for making my point more clear.

The Traveler

I would agree with your assessment here if you took the word "all" out of there. I don't think Jesus made any reference to "all" which is the point that I am making. The last part of that sentence is definitely true; "to consider things beyond what we think may be important (or necessary for salvation) at the time."

For you to agree with that later part of the statement though contradicts what you said before that "all" truth is equal in its value. If that were the case it would make no difference how Martha spent her time. In your assessment, from what I can gather, what Martha is doing versus Mary makes no difference so long as the focus is on something that is true. Clearly, it does matter. And because it matters we should choose the better part. And if it matters, then there must be some hierarchy of value of information and truth to which we value. If that is the case then "all" truth should not be sought after with equal vigor during this life .... we have to be somewhat choosy and best guided by the spirit. So long as one is guided by the spirit then we are 'considering things beyond what we think may be important at the time.' We can 'consider things beyond what we think may be important at the time' without having to desire "all" truth now.

If I construct a definition of truth based in faithfully (without having full knowledge or need for full knowledge) being guided by the spirit, how is that any different than your claim to one's ability to "construct" the truth? What does your "construct" of the truth entail that I have not been including? The only thing I can find is that I have been saying that we don't have to focus on "all" the truth there possibly is (i.e. - being all knowing) while in mortality to have confidence that we will one day gain full knowledge at some point.

The criteria for things worthwhile are not 'true versus false' but things that are praiseworthy and of good report. Of course, things that are praiseworthy and of good report are true, but that is not the defining factor that makes them worthwhile in this life. Fact learning is not the goal of this life. I think the admonition of Paul is more correct than the criteria you are proposing.

By being inclusive in your terminology you make no attempt to support the notion that we should be selective of the things we learn. I think we should seek after things that are of "good report" and not just "truthful" things. I don't need to spend my time learning how to construct weapons of mass destruction for example as I have many other better 'truthful' topics to ponder and study with my short time on Earth. Whereas you are suggesting it wouldn't matter the topic by using the word "all" truth.

[circusboy01]

Seminarysnoozer, and Traveler.

I forgive you guys for hijacking my Dinosaur thread. Your conversations are much more interesting.

Were you guys members of debate teams in high School? ;0)

[Traveler]

I would agree with your assessment here if you took the word "all" out of there. I don't think Jesus made any reference to "all" which is the point that I am making. The last part of that sentence is definitely true; "to consider things beyond what we think may be important (or necessary for salvation) at the time."

For you to agree with that later part of the statement though contradicts what you said before that "all" truth is equal in its value. If that were the case it would make no difference how Martha spent her time. In your assessment, from what I can gather, what Martha is doing versus Mary makes no difference so long as the focus is on something that is true. Clearly, it does matter. And because it matters we should choose the better part. And if it matters, then there must be some hierarchy of value of information and truth to which we value. If that is the case then "all" truth should not be sought after with equal vigor during this life .... we have to be somewhat choosy and best guided by the spirit. So long as one is guided by the spirit then we are 'considering things beyond what we think may be important at the time.' We can 'consider things beyond what we think may be important at the time' without having to desire "all" truth now.

If I construct a definition of truth based in faithfully (without having full knowledge or need for full knowledge) being guided by the spirit, how is that any different than your claim to one's ability to "construct" the truth? What does your "construct" of the truth entail that I have not been including? The only thing I can find is that I have been saying that we don't have to focus on "all" the truth there possibly is (i.e. - being all knowing) while in mortality to have confidence that we will one day gain full knowledge at some point.

The criteria for things worthwhile are not 'true versus false' but things that are praiseworthy and of good report. Of course, things that are praiseworthy and of good report are true, but that is not the defining factor that makes them worthwhile in this life. Fact learning is not the goal of this life. I think the admonition of Paul is more correct than the criteria you are proposing.

By being inclusive in your terminology you make no attempt to support the notion that we should be selective of the things we learn. I think we should seek after things that are of "good report" and not just "truthful" things. I don't need to spend my time learning how to construct weapons of mass destruction for example as I have many other better 'truthful' topics to ponder and study with my short time on Earth. Whereas you are suggesting it wouldn't matter the topic by using the word "all" truth.

We are revisiting old territory. There is a very important difference between truth and information. But to illustrate the difference let us review Moses 6:61 & 63:

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

...

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

Also take a look at D&C 93: 26 & 28.

The concept of holy is inclusive of both whole and complete - all is very important. What I do not understand is why you insist that we can attach value to some subset of partial truth - thinking one bit of truth is greater than another. At the same time I do not understand thinking that one part of truth is equal to another. My point is that if someone is not seeking all truth - they are not seeking G-d. Again my point is that we cannot pick and choose our parts of truth - if we are not willing and seeking all truth we will not find it - nor will we find G-d. There is nothing that is true that does not bear witness of G-d so if we would reject any truth we reject a witness of G-d and in so doing our understanding is not whole, complete or "one" with truth and G-d.

Thus it is always "better" or a greater to consider and desire more understanding of truth - it is never evil or bad or a disadvantage to consider truth - the disadvantage is in not accepting some portion of truth. Since the Holy Ghost testifies the truth of all things then if we are not interested in the truth of all things we listen to another spirit which is not the spirit of G-d and does not testify of the truth of all things - and that is a great error.

It is the whole that is important - the eyes are not greater than the hands or feet - if any part is missing then the body of truth is not whole and complete.

It is also interesting to me that to be humble also means to be teachable and not discerning what we will receive from G-d.

Thanks for listing and reading and trying to make sense of my efforts - deep down I an not sure there is disagreement as much as there is misunderstanding.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Seminarysnoozer, and Traveler.

I forgive you guys for hijacking my Dinosaur thread. Your conversations are much more interesting.

Were you guys members of debate teams in high School? ;0)

Interesting observation - I was on the debate team in high school but my college degree was math and physics. I currently work (from home) as a consultant engineer for automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.

Seminarysnoozer is either very lucky or very smart in her comments. (I assume very smart and that is why I push her to her limits - we can all learn a lot from her) I worked for 8 years as a consultant to the Defense Department on a number of weapon systems of mass destruction.

The Traveler

[circusboy01]

Interesting observation - I was on the debate team in high school but my college degree was math and physics. I currently work (from home) as a consultant engineer for automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.

Seminarysnoozer is either very lucky or very smart in her comments. (I assume very smart and that is why I push her to her limits - we can all learn a lot from her) I worked for 8 years as a consultant to the Defense Department on a number of weapon systems of mass destruction.

The Traveler

See. I knew you guys were smart. I started to write was smart. Just as a joke. But I was afraid you might not know it was a joke, and just think it was just bad grammar on my part.

Like I said you are both very interesting. Can't tell who's winning the discussions. Guess I'll just have to wait until the end to find out ;0)

[Traveler]

See. I knew you guys were smart. I started to write was smart. Just as a joke. But I was afraid you might not know it was a joke, and just think it was just bad grammar on my part.

Like I said you are both very interesting. Can't tell who's winning the discussions. Guess I'll just have to wait until the end to find out ;0)

Winning for me is not necessarily arriving at some point (perhaps the “end”) but more of a process or journey. It seems to me that truth is not some destination and not really the journey to somewhere but for me it is more a method or process. I would liken the truth to a journey from Salt Lake to Denver (as an example). Sure you can think of the trip as getting from point A to point B. In that case you can go to the Salt Lake Airport and get on an airplane and shortly land at the Denver Airport (that is half way from Denver to Kansas). Anyway you took the trip from SLC to Denver - you arrived. Or you could take several hours and drive your car from SLC to Denver. In your car you will see a lot more between SLC and Denver. You can sit in air condition and see (thus experience) things you would never have seen on a airplane.

There is another possibility - and whenever possible - I prefer this possibility. You could get on a bicycle and take a week riding from SLC to Denver. On a bicycle you will have a more full experience of the journey. You will feel the heat of the sun and the force of the wind. You will smell things that you cannot experience in an airplane or air conditioned automobile. You will become acquainted with yourself and feel you heart beat increase on hills. Because you are moving under your own power you will come to understand eating good efficient food and having plenty of water in order to function at your best. Surprise you will even sleep better at night. Since you need to be much more aware of your environment there will be no artificial sounds from a radio or some other “artificial” device and because a bicycle does not make much noise you will hear things on your journey others will miss - you will see and hear things other will not even know about - you will even taste things and experience so many details left out by other travelers.

Sadly many (especially in America) so poorly maintain themselves physically that it would be impossible for them to accomplish a bicycle trip from SLC to Denver. They are so far out of touch with so many things that they do not realize that they are even missing anything. What is even more sad to me is that a great many would consider such an experience at the outset as a completely negative thing. They would not even consider it - even if they were paid? Why waist the time experiencing such fullness when you can leave SLC and be in Denver is less than a couple of hours. And besides if you are a “little” overweight you can diet and go to the gym and exercise. And if that is not enough you can have the doctor prescribe some pills or some other magic with a knife and feel just as good about yourself - right? Life is all about the shortest quickest easiest solution. Why consider anything you do not have to! Isn’t that the message of Jesus - take the easiest quickest way to salvation you can find: - isn’t Truth exactly that?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

We are revisiting old territory. There is a very important difference between truth and information. But to illustrate the difference let us review Moses 6:61 & 63:

Also take a look at D&C 93: 26 & 28.

The concept of holy is inclusive of both whole and complete - all is very important. What I do not understand is why you insist that we can attach value to some subset of partial truth - thinking one bit of truth is greater than another. At the same time I do not understand thinking that one part of truth is equal to another. My point is that if someone is not seeking all truth - they are not seeking G-d. Again my point is that we cannot pick and choose our parts of truth - if we are not willing and seeking all truth we will not find it - nor will we find G-d. There is nothing that is true that does not bear witness of G-d so if we would reject any truth we reject a witness of G-d and in so doing our understanding is not whole, complete or "one" with truth and G-d.

Thus it is always "better" or a greater to consider and desire more understanding of truth - it is never evil or bad or a disadvantage to consider truth - the disadvantage is in not accepting some portion of truth. Since the Holy Ghost testifies the truth of all things then if we are not interested in the truth of all things we listen to another spirit which is not the spirit of G-d and does not testify of the truth of all things - and that is a great error.

It is the whole that is important - the eyes are not greater than the hands or feet - if any part is missing then the body of truth is not whole and complete.

It is also interesting to me that to be humble also means to be teachable and not discerning what we will receive from G-d.

Thanks for listing and reading and trying to make sense of my efforts - deep down I an not sure there is disagreement as much as there is misunderstanding.

The Traveler

Thanks for your comments and your patience.

I want to be clear that I have never endorsed the idea that some truth can or should be ignored or discounted. To me, those type of words are too extreme. All I was talking about was this blanket approach to priority.

I don't think that my Father in Heaven would be too pleased with me if, as a mother of 4 children, went back to school to earn yet another degree and in the process failed to support my husband and to assist my children in their growth and development. This life gives us choices to make as to where our efforts go first and foremost. That, again, is not a statement of discounting the truthfulness and the value of those truths that could have been learned at a University during that time. For me, though, the spirit guides me in telling me where to put my efforts now. I was offered a research position many years ago. I didn't take it, instead I decided to marry and have children. My faith and testimony tells me I did the right thing. I wouldn't give up my children for another title or research honor or even discovering a new treatment for Parkinson's disease (which was the offer for research I had back then). In one who does not categorize the value of truth, to the point of putting one thing above another, I could see how they may choose differently. If that is one's mindset that all truth is valuable, even more than service or other things that can be done in this life then their choices will be molded by that thought process.

The verse in Moses says that the source of all truth is the comforter. I have never said anything against that and so I am not sure why that supports the argument one way or another. You also keep throwing in the word "willing" which was not my argument. I am focusing on "able" as opposed to willing. As stated above, I am not "able" to go back to work on another degree or work in research with young children. Would I be willing to do it if the Lord asked me too? Sure! Willing and able are not the same thing. In this world, time and ability create the need for prioritization.

President Eyring said; "Our first priority should go to spiritual learning. For us, reading the scriptures would come before reading history books. Prayer would come before memorizing those Spanish verbs. A temple recommend would be worth more than standing first in our graduating class. But it is also clear that spiritual learning would not replace our drive for secular learning."

and "To keep spiritual learning in its proper place, we will have to make some hard choices of how we use our time. But there should never be a conscious choice to let the spiritual become secondary. Never. That will lead to tragedy. Remember, you are interested in education, not just for mortal life but for eternal life. When you see that reality clearly, you will put spiritual learning first and yet not slight the secular learning. In fact, you will work harder at your secular learning than you would without that spiritual vision."

Secular learning is secondary, I have never said it can be disregarded or should not be sought after but should be put in its proper order as President Eyring has said, otherwise it can lead to "tragedy".

President Eyring also 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."

And this is why I was saying that the way to make that prioritization is based in motives. The reason to learn is not to exalt one self!!! It should only be to serve the Lord. If that is true, then yes certain types of truths have value over others. An area of study that cannot or does not have the right motives attached to it cannot be as valuable as one that does. This is why I do not study how to make weapons of mass destruction or 30 ways to kill someone with a knife or research new deadly poisons etc. etc. I have allowed for that distinction in my posts, you cannot make that distinction with your idea that all truth is as valuable to us in this life and should be sought after with as much zeal as any other truth no matter the motive or intent.

[Sicily510]

We are revisiting old territory. There is a very important difference between truth and information. But to illustrate the difference let us review Moses 6:61 & 63:

Also take a look at D&C 93: 26 & 28.

The concept of holy is inclusive of both whole and complete - all is very important. What I do not understand is why you insist that we can attach value to some subset of partial truth - thinking one bit of truth is greater than another. At the same time I do not understand thinking that one part of truth is equal to another. My point is that if someone is not seeking all truth - they are not seeking G-d. Again my point is that we cannot pick and choose our parts of truth - if we are not willing and seeking all truth we will not find it - nor will we find G-d. There is nothing that is true that does not bear witness of G-d so if we would reject any truth we reject a witness of G-d and in so doing our understanding is not whole, complete or "one" with truth and G-d.

Thus it is always "better" or a greater to consider and desire more understanding of truth - it is never evil or bad or a disadvantage to consider truth - the disadvantage is in not accepting some portion of truth. Since the Holy Ghost testifies the truth of all things then if we are not interested in the truth of all things we listen to another spirit which is not the spirit of G-d and does not testify of the truth of all things - and that is a great error.

It is the whole that is important - the eyes are not greater than the hands or feet - if any part is missing then the body of truth is not whole and complete.

It is also interesting to me that to be humble also means to be teachable and not discerning what we will receive from G-d.

Thanks for listing and reading and trying to make sense of my efforts - deep down I an not sure there is disagreement as much as there is misunderstanding.

The Traveler

Yes, there is a difference between truth and information just like there is a difference between science and religion or even bioethics and spiritual healing.

Question, is there a difference between Wisdom and Knowledge? Indeed there is for wisdom has superiority over knowledge, wisdom includes understanding and moral conduct.

An excerpt from J.D. Douglas :

One was not wise, regardless of his vast learning, if his actions did not comply with his righteous beliefs: “Like all Hebrew intellectual virtues, wisdom … is intensely practical, not theoretical. Basically, wisdom is the art of being successful, of forming the correct plan to gain the desired results. Its seat is the heart, the centre of moral and intellectual decision.

If one knows truth than they know Jesus Christ and know that he is the way, the truth, and the life. Now, from my understanding when reading the verse in regards to Mary and Martha Jesus told Martha one thing is NEEDFUL and it shouldn't be taught differently nor perversed or even misconstrued in any way. In my opinion, when ones concept of understanding "ALL" as knowledge or even truth that one is diluted to the understanding of our Savior and his ordinances. Subsets is science, philosophy of socrates, U.S. History, global warming, politics, the monetary system. Which of all these subsets are focused solely on the line upon line precepts upon precepts formula of our Savior Jesus Christ. It's necessary to discern oneself to understand that Heavenly Fathers law is that we shadow the examples of our Savior Jesus Christ not just have knowledge of it, we must convey it through our good works and good deeds.

When I read D&C 93:26, "The spirit of truth is of God" truth is "Wisdom" of God. So then the spirit of Wisdom is of God, which testifieths of all things. If one truly understands Jesus Christ then they know that his ways is a process that requires faith,discipline, dedication, labor and compassion. I find it that some are so caught up in the carnal mentality of things that they lack faith in the spiritual need for Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. One may pity others in the lack of physical health and lack of knowledge in things when one should pity themselves in the lack of faith and spiritual understanding of the Savior Jesus Christ.

[Bensalem]

Genesis 3:14*

Dinosaurs are just snakes with legs.

I thought they were chickens without wings and sharks without fins.

[LeKook]

I have a question about dinosaurs. Sorry, I read through this thread and it looks like the church has no official position on dinosaurs, probably because it's not likely they still exist. However, my question is about the Tyrannosaurus Rex - why were his arms so short? He can't reach anything, especially in animated movies when his prey is literally cornered. If I were T-Rex I'd cease to exist simply as a result of the fact that my arms were so incomprehensively short. What a mess.

[Vort]

Oh, dinosaurs absolutely still exist. I often joke with my kids about having to clean dinosaur poop off my car.

[Vort]

I have a question about dinosaurs. Sorry, I read through this thread and it looks like the church has no official position on dinosaurs, probably because it's not likely they still exist. However, my question is about the Tyrannosaurus Rex - why were his arms so short? He can't reach anything, especially in animated movies when his prey is literally cornered. If I were T-Rex I'd cease to exist simply as a result of the fact that my arms were so incomprehensively short. What a mess.

[LeKook]

Vort! You just made me snarf water on my computer keyboard! LOL!!!!!

[Vort]

Vort! You just made me snarf water on my computer keyboard! LOL!!!!!

[Crash]

As members of the church, and as Christians, we have the Bible's record of time, which says that mankind has been on the earth for 6000 years. That doesn't mean the earth is 6000 or 7000 years old.

The earth's formation took millions of years, roughly 500 million years ago. Science may be limited to human capacity but do not discount its accuracy on certain things. The star that appeared over Bethlehem the night of Christ's birth didn't appear miraculously at the same time. It had been formed thousands or millions of years before, so that's its light would reach earth at precisely the right moment to coincide with His birth.

There is irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs existed on earth, and it is likely that they served a purpose. That they are not spoken of in scripture or by church leaders makes no difference because their existence has nothing to do with our salvation. My opinion is that they were here to contribute to the creation of natural resources, but that's me.

We have to realize that science does some things extremely well. If we believe that the dinosaur bones and fossils were transplanted here by some other planet, as I saw someone post, then that is pure speculation. Planets are formed by dust particles, not large chunks of matter. The law of heaven still obeys the laws of physics and the universe (ie, the star's creation before Christ's birth).

In terms of salvation, dinosaurs don't matter. In terms of science and earth's history, they existed on earth. in terms of entertainment, thank goodness Steven Spielberg made Jurassic Park because it's awesome!

[mnn727]

As members of the church, and as Christians, we have the Bible's record of time, which says that mankind has been on the earth for 6000 years.

Actually, we have mans interpretation after all of the multiple translations of the Bible which seems to suggest that based upon a guess of how long each generation was.

Personally I reject that particular interpretation and guess what? I still just got my Temple Recommend renewed yesterday (and there were no question about; the age of the Earth, how long mankind has been here, or anything about Dinosaurs). Must not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually, we have mans interpretation after all of the multiple translations of the Bible which seems to suggest that based upon a guess of how long each generation was.

Personally I reject that particular interpretation and guess what? I still just got my Temple Recommend renewed yesterday (and there were no question about; the age of the Earth, how long mankind has been here, or anything about Dinosaurs). Must not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

How strangely defensive and argumentative.

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually, we have mans interpretation after all of the multiple translations of the Bible which seems to suggest that based upon a guess of how long each generation was.

Personally I reject that particular interpretation and guess what? I still just got my Temple Recommend renewed yesterday (and there were no question about; the age of the Earth, how long mankind has been here, or anything about Dinosaurs). Must not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

By the way, you may want to review D&C 77:5-7 in regards to this being based entirely upon man's interpretation.

[MrShorty]

However, my question is about the Tyrannosaurus Rex - why were his arms so short? He can't reach anything, especially in animated movies when his prey is literally cornered. If I were T-Rex I'd cease to exist simply as a result of the fact that my arms were so incomprehensively short.

It can be an interesting question. Vestigiality is rather common in nature. It is quite possible that T-Rex's arms are nothing more than "evolutionary leftovers." T-Rex had arms only because whatever they descended from had arms/forelegs.

Of course there is some difficulty in proving vestigiality, (especially in a pre-historic creature). about.com has a brief discussion about T-Rex's arms Why Did T. Rex Have Such Tiny Arms?

As I recall from my old Evolution class at BYU, vestigiality has historically been an interesting part of the evolution vs. creation debate. Why would an intelligent creator make something with a vestigial structure?

[The Folk Prophet]

As I recall from my old Evolution class at BYU, vestigiality has historically been an interesting part of the evolution vs. creation debate. Why would an intelligent creator make something with a vestigial structure?

Was not creation and THEN evolution a potential resolution?

[Dravin]

As I recall from my old Evolution class at BYU, vestigiality has historically been an interesting part of the evolution vs. creation debate. Why would an intelligent creator make something with a vestigial structure?

Honestly a lot of evolution vs. creation debates are more accurately phrased as creation vs. abiogensis. Not all of them of course, but there tends to be a lot of conflation in such discussions (on both sides).

Edited January 27, 2014 by Dravin

[Traveler]

The Genesis epochs of Creation, Adam, Eve and Eden is intended to be figurative. When attempts are made to do a conformal mapping of figurative symbols to literal descriptions of events I believe we miss all the important points.

Traditional religious explanations of dinosaurs is riddled with flaws, pretense and fantasies. Scientific explanations of dinosaurs is not without its mistakes but when compared to religious explanations there is no question to any honest person, which of the two, over time, has proven most reliable. Neither ancient scripture nor modern revelation of the restoration has attempted to address anything significant associated with dinosaurs. But if one becomes involved in empirical evidence - religious explanations of very little of our physical universe makes much sense at all.

It is my opinion that LDS theology is unique in the landscape of science and religion of our modern era in that we LDS believe there are things yet to be revealed and learned. Basic to this construct is the concept of repentance. That is learning (religious and scientific) that brings about changes in understanding; with a fresh perspective of G-d, his creations (the universe) and our our place in the grand scheme of things, including our relationship to other life on earth; over which we have dominion, as well as our fellow man.

Dinosaurs are an enigma both scientifically and religiously and a means of separating the sheep from the goats concerning those dedicated to the pursuit of truth.

The Traveler