The Greater Advantage


Anddenex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sounds good - with the understanding that historically it has been those that have touted religion and the need to "protect" religious "truth" that have proven to be most detrimental to human society. For example - Joseph Smith was not murdered to perverse perceived scientific principles that are obviously inferior to divine truths. But rather principles of justice and law were suspended because it was thought such things are "inferior" to the will or truths of G-d. It is the justification of religious fanatics that sacrifice truth on the alters of false G-ds.

The Traveler

makes sense, I guess I wouldn't consider those fanatical people as honest seekers of truth, but hypocrites and liars before God who claim the truth but don't really understand it. Thus they justify their murderous actions like you said. They are like the pharisees and others of Christ's day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

makes sense, I guess I wouldn't consider those fanatical people as honest seekers of truth, but hypocrites and liars before God who claim the truth but don't really understand it. Thus they justify their murderous actions like you said. They are like the pharisees and others of Christ's day.

I agree. But this leads to the next question - How should two persons that are both seeking truth deal with each other when they disagree?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But this leads to the next question - How should two persons that are both seeking truth deal with each other when they disagree?

They should fight to the death, knowing that the survivor will be the one who's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an advocate of learning - I believe the first great lesson in learning is to learn how to learn. I believe in the journey not just the destination. I believe the principles of truth are outside of who believes it. For example I believe truth is not what G-d believes and therefore it is true. I believe that G-d himself is an eternal seeker of truth. That truth exist regardless of who believes it. Thus G-d speaks truth because he loves truth. That G-d seeks after all things that are true and that the quest for truth is the quest to be as G-d.

I believe it is possible to seek information in place of truth and that should a person seek information they will miss the truth because truth itself must be sought, it must be desired greater than life itself. So I believe it is better to strive for truth than to have found it and lost the desire to seek any more. Therefore, to me the problem is not in seeking for truth but in the one that thinks they have "the better truth".

It does not matter how much a person loves traveling east or west with the sun. It does not matter how much they have learned traveling east and west or how important understanding the difference between east and west is (even in an eternal perspective) - to get from Provo to Salt Lake (not a great distance) they must go north. And so it is with truth. It is not just about knowing - there is a dimension of truth in what we do.

But what I have learned to be most wary of - are those that - for whatever reason or excuse they make up - do not pursue truth because they think it is not really necessary or a truth that is not necessary - or that it is too difficult or a truth that is too difficult - or does not really matter in eternity or for their salvation or a truth that does not matter in eternity or a truth necessary for their salvation. All those excuses I believe to be lies - that the difference between G-d and Satan is that G-d seeks Truth and Satan seeks what could be called partial truths or what he thinks are the best truth but in realities are lies.

Perhaps I am closed minded - but the smorgasbord approach to truth is what I find flawed and something I do not recommend - that is why I have challenged you posts. It appears to me that is the very thing you are advocating.

The Traveler

Thanks for your posts, I learn a lot with these discussions.

I am all for truth and learning as well but I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that we are in the midst of a test and that we have limited time. With those two situations it is important to focus on the relevant truths as to the test we face. The "important truths" (which I think is what Elder Bednar was getting at) are the ones that will earn the opportunity for eternal progression and the key to learning all truth.

If I am hoping to get into medical school and the MCAT is a few weeks away, why would I spend my time studying how to program computers in fortran?

The value of truth depends on the motives. "The motives" is the test, which is the desire of our heart. God is not a respecter of persons, meaning the opportunity for success is given to all. If that is true then the amount of information learned is not a measure of that success. Otherwise, this life is very unfair as far as that goes. It would not be fair to compare the amount of information learned by the individual living by the sweat of his brow, literally, back in 1000 BC with the amount of information that can be learned by an individual today.

If learning is that high on the importance list, then we shouldn't be sending 18 year olds out on missions right at the time that the focus on education is at it's highest. And especially if it doesn't matter what type of information they learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your posts, I learn a lot with these discussions.

I am all for truth and learning as well but I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that we are in the midst of a test and that we have limited time. With those two situations it is important to focus on the relevant truths as to the test we face. The "important truths" (which I think is what Elder Bednar was getting at) are the ones that will earn the opportunity for eternal progression and the key to learning all truth.

If I am hoping to get into medical school and the MCAT is a few weeks away, why would I spend my time studying how to program computers in fortran?

The value of truth depends on the motives. "The motives" is the test, which is the desire of our heart. God is not a respecter of persons, meaning the opportunity for success is given to all. If that is true then the amount of information learned is not a measure of that success. Otherwise, this life is very unfair as far as that goes. It would not be fair to compare the amount of information learned by the individual living by the sweat of his brow, literally, back in 1000 BC with the amount of information that can be learned by an individual today.

If learning is that high on the importance list, then we shouldn't be sending 18 year olds out on missions right at the time that the focus on education is at it's highest. And especially if it doesn't matter what type of information they learn.

I have hoped that you would see one or two trees as you sped passed the forest. Facts, information and data are bits of or remnants of truth altered by opinions and point of views. If you study as a student in medical school or to be a fortran programmer relying on the "information" dumped in front of you - you cannot have any better understanding of truth than the books that record the data.

I would compare truth to be more associated with practice and discipline. For example, you can study music for thousands of years - but until you practice discipline and play music the truth of music will likely elude you. And if you only play one musical sequence - what truth you may have found will likely become lost.

And as music so is science and so are the principles of religion. I am of the notion that a person has not discovered truth until that truth changes them. My father use to say you cannot change anything until you do two things. First you must start doing what you have never done before and even then there will not really be a change and actually be different until you stop doing what you have always done before.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But this leads to the next question - How should two persons that are both seeking truth deal with each other when they disagree?

The Traveler

There has to be a mutual understanding that people will disagree. The reasons will vary. Semantics will be one. Disagreement on principle another. Misunderstandings arise from anywhere. Other things as well.

So, civility is a must otherwise there will be no learning and the conversation was a waste of time.

I'd say the biggest thing is be patient, make an honest effort to understand. If there was a misunderstanding then there is no possible way to agree or even disagree intelligently, only ignorantly. So, do what you can to understand. Once understood, take time to evaluate whether it lines up with your principles or not. And then you decide to agree or disagree.

Everyone disagrees with someone at some point. Understanding that people have agency to choose what they want to believe is at the root of respecting other peoples opinion. I don't often care that people believe something different than I do.

What does make me angry is when people are ignorant. And I mean willfully of course. They say oh I'll vote for this person. I say why? oh because she's female. and? oh she campaigned. and? what do you mean "and"? :combust:

To me, I ask why did you vote. For all we know it could have been a serial killer. They assume because of certain characteristics, they must be good. They willfully chose not to study anything about the candidates, and thought that person was good based on gender. Others is their appearance(lipstick, pants), skin color, education(He went to michigan I am not voting because I went to Ohio state), state, etc.

If their decision didn't affect my life then no worries. However since it might or it does, then it annoys me.

Otherwise I find I learn from everyone else and that helps me value my relationship with them. Even if I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have hoped that you would see one or two trees as you sped passed the forest. Facts, information and data are bits of or remnants of truth altered by opinions and point of views. If you study as a student in medical school or to be a fortran programmer relying on the "information" dumped in front of you - you cannot have any better understanding of truth than the books that record the data.

I would compare truth to be more associated with practice and discipline. For example, you can study music for thousands of years - but until you practice discipline and play music the truth of music will likely elude you. And if you only play one musical sequence - what truth you may have found will likely become lost.

And as music so is science and so are the principles of religion. I am of the notion that a person has not discovered truth until that truth changes them. My father use to say you cannot change anything until you do two things. First you must start doing what you have never done before and even then there will not really be a change and actually be different until you stop doing what you have always done before.

The Traveler

Thanks! Now we are on common ground. :lol:

I feel like what you are saying here is what I have been saying all along which is to say in my summarized version, to learn how to apply the truth to the right purpose (in this case, the desire of one's heart - God or self) is a more important issue than the quantity of truth while here in this world. That doesn't make the quantity of truth a non-issue but in our limited time during our probationary state, even 80 to 100 years of life seems like the least likely place to learn quantity over quality compared to the thousands if not millions of years we had before this life to learn quantity.

These comments you give here Traveler are exactly why I spend most of my pondering hours wondering about why the body is necessary to be a Celestial being. Of course we can say it is because God has one and we want to be like Him. But that doesn't answer the question of why a spirit combined with a perfected body permanently would be a higher state of glory than a spirit alone could be. What is it then that the body adds to "truth". The body then becomes part of the application of truth, the details of which are left to our pondering and faith held beliefs that there is a reason. I have a few theories about those factors that possibly only the body can add to the equation of how "truth" is used but this may not be the appropriate forum to discuss those. In part, though, this is why I previously brought up with you the scientific fact that how humans form memory is based in it's emotional significance and bias.

One other unique aspect of the human body (brain really) and at least as far as we know is that we can reason the position of another person, we can have empathy. I like your statement about "you cannot have any better understanding of truth than the books that record the data" as I think it directly relates to this issue. I think it is interesting that the pinnacle of Christ' mission was to have empathy for all the souls. The greatest commandment is to have empathy. It is also interesting to ponder the neurodevelopmental aspect of empathy. It is interesting to note that we all have to "grow in stature" when it comes to being able to differentiate the feelings of self from others. But that is the important stage in which truth must be set in order to follow the two greatest commandments. This is why, in part, there is an age of accountability, probably more important than just knowing right from wrong. It is interesting to ponder how the stages of glory differ in their social connectiveness within the Kingdoms, the Celestial Kingdom like glass where all is seen and not compartmentalized. The skill of vicarious and self-sacrificing works (empathizing and applying truths to how we show love and kindness for others) of all kind seem to be more important than the gathering of truths in the end. ... possibly the body is required to have that kind of application to put the truth in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a mutual understanding that people will disagree. The reasons will vary. Semantics will be one. Disagreement on principle another. Misunderstandings arise from anywhere. Other things as well.

So, civility is a must otherwise there will be no learning and the conversation was a waste of time.

I'd say the biggest thing is be patient, make an honest effort to understand. If there was a misunderstanding then there is no possible way to agree or even disagree intelligently, only ignorantly. So, do what you can to understand. Once understood, take time to evaluate whether it lines up with your principles or not. And then you decide to agree or disagree.

Everyone disagrees with someone at some point. Understanding that people have agency to choose what they want to believe is at the root of respecting other peoples opinion. I don't often care that people believe something different than I do.

...

The problem in a disagreement is that we can only effect one side in the disagreement. I believe the question we need to ask ourself - is what we can benefit or take away from the disagreement? I think that the point is - if you cannot find anything to profit by - you will waist your time and the time of who ever you disagree with. There will be nothing to win and everything to lose - but if you can find something from which to benefit - you will win regardless of the results.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should fight to the death, knowing that the survivor will be the one who's right.

Based on a discussion with my brother, a far more entertaining conflict is to have the two parties fight, but declare the best-looking one the victor. A fight to the death involves a strong offense with a minimal amount of defense to prevent mortal wounds. "Charm" fights increase the defense considerably for a more satisfying spectacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are taught that what we learn in this life will be taken with us. I believe that those who are mentally handicap really learn more than we know. We don't know what goes on in their brains. They observe so much and take in so much. I have a good friend who has a handicap son and although he doesn't talk (he's 10) he is one smart cookie. I don't think they will be any less off in the next life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on a discussion with my brother, a far more entertaining conflict is to have the two parties fight, but declare the best-looking one the victor. A fight to the death involves a strong offense with a minimal amount of defense to prevent mortal wounds. "Charm" fights increase the defense considerably for a more satisfying spectacle.

Can we arm them with 3/4" by 36" oak dowels and call them Ugly Sticks? Or would willow switches work better as Ugly Sticks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share