The Fall – Spiritual and Physical

[Seminarysnoozer]

The scriptures tell us that misery is a spiritual condition - not a physical condition. For example we are told that Satan wants all to be miserable as he is miserable. Once we understand misery as a spiritual condition we can explore what is meant by spiritual misery. I hope this is obvious; it is the state of spiritual death or as the scriptures are understood by LDS as the second death – which is spiritual separation from G-d the Father.

You are making an assumption that separation from the Father is initiated at birth. I am not as sure as you (if you believe it) that such is the case. It seems to be and I believe that we were all spiritually separated from the Father together as symbolically represented in scripture as the Garden epoch and the Fall of man.

The final point is that time (as we are also told in scripture) is not that meaningful to G-d. Thus it does not matter how long an individual experiences death (physical or spiritual) they still have experience from which they obtain knowledge.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. As I understand the sacrifices that Adam was told to do were intended to point to the atonement of Christ and his sacrifice. I have stated many times that I believe the knowledge of good is the knowledge of the sacrificial atonement of Christ. You seem to have grasped the understanding that knowledge is not the just the accumulation of information. I think this is a most important concept. Until we receive the power of the resurrection the concept of the atonement is a matter of faith. But once the resurrection has occurred it will no longer be a matter of faith but knowledge. Thus the mission of mortality and our choice to participate in G-d plan to gain knowledge of good and evil is complete. I am not sure if there is another rational way to consider these things and still come to the conclusion that G-d is just.

It appears to me that a person can believe and say anything but like Paul indicates – we need to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. As I understand prove – at least as a minimum we ought to be able to respond (search and prove) to the most difficult questions. But it has been my experience that those that fear scrutiny do so for good reason - the reason being that their beliefs are shallow and cannot stand scrutiny. Let alone provide a path or way to eternity that meets divine standards.

This in part could be a purpose of a forum like this. Where we can test out our ideas in a field where we can learn from other. Especially those that have considered something we have not. At least this is one reason I post - not so much to convince someone of any particular possibility but to see if someone has considered something I have left out. I realize some think I am arrogant to argue certain points – my purpose is not so much to argue against a particular as it is to say I have considered that possibility and found it incomplete for reason I state – as in this thread I find many traditional ideas contradictory to justice – so I try to ask question that seem some are not considering – to see if they have considered such things or if their thinking is shallow or worth considering again in case I missed something.

The Traveler

I agree with most of what you are saying here. Thanks.

Where does it say that time is not that meaningful to God?

We know that God's work and glory is to "bring to pass..." which is an act of time. Sounds like the scriptures suggest the passage of time is pretty important to God.

[Traveler]

I agree with most of what you are saying here. Thanks.

Where does it say that time is not that meaningful to God?

We know that God's work and glory is to "bring to pass..." which is an act of time. Sounds like the scriptures suggest the passage of time is pretty important to God.

I believe you are spot on in understanding that time is a dimension denoting or metered in change. Now bring to that understanding; that - although G-d uses time in our space time existence - that G-d him self is an unchanging being (or G-d), that is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe you are spot on in understanding that time is a dimension denoting or metered in change. Now bring to that understanding; that - although G-d uses time in our space time existence - that G-d him self is an unchanging being (or G-d), that is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The Traveler

His unchanging nature refers to His unchanging course. y=x^2 is ever increasing and yet the equation doesn't change. A point on the line "changes" from one to another but the course and the equation do not change.

This point of view allows for an ever increasing nature. Timelessness is a man made concept.

[Traveler]

Not entirely – not only is timelessness a concept (even an ancient concept) it is also the basis of subatomic particles we call Bosons – it is also a basis property of black holes which is most intersting. Bosons are articles that only exist in our universe when traveling at the speed of light. Could light (boson) particles be (at least in part) spiritual elements or matter? We understand from scripture that spirit matter is something that exist throughout the universe and that all things created have spirit counterpart. Scientifically we have discovered that Boson particles exist in all matter as we understand matter. Time does not exist in a reference frame that travels at the speed of light – and the basis of this theory (time alters with acceleration) has been proven.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not entirely – not only is timelessness a concept (even an ancient concept) it is also the basis of subatomic particles we call Bosons – it is also a basis property of black holes which is most intersting. Bosons are articles that only exist in our universe when traveling at the speed of light. Could light (boson) particles be (at least in part) spiritual elements or matter? We understand from scripture that spirit matter is something that exist throughout the universe and that all things created have spirit counterpart. Scientifically we have discovered that Boson particles exist in all matter as we understand matter. Time does not exist in a reference frame that travels at the speed of light – and the basis of this theory (time alters with acceleration) has been proven.

The Traveler

Ancient man is still man.

The passage of time is required for travel. If something is traveling, time is passing, by definition. Otherwise it is simply existing. What has traveled at the speed of light to detect such particles that is always traveling at the speed of light to maintain its "timeless" status never returning to a time passing state? How can timelessness be measured while time is passing? As soon as whatever device measures timelessness or things that are timeless returns to a time passing state, all information about its timeless state is now corrupted by time passing. Again, this is a man made concept, timelessness. Time altering with acceleration still is not "timelessness", time is just altered.

Not being affected by time is different than timelessness. Timelessness would mean that there is no yesterday, today or tomorrow. Timelessness means that nothing could occur, the bringing about a person's salvation could never be experienced as there would be no change in their status from before to after. What glory exists for God if He cannot experience our transformation and growth. It says in the scriptures that Jesus increased in stature amongst God and man. How could Jesus increase in God's eyes for anything if there is no passage of time? Work requires the passage of time. If there is no time there are no works. It is a ridiculous idea.

[Traveler]

Ancient man is still man.

The passage of time is required for travel. If something is traveling, time is passing, by definition. Otherwise it is simply existing. What has traveled at the speed of light to detect such particles that is always traveling at the speed of light to maintain its "timeless" status never returning to a time passing state? How can timelessness be measured while time is passing? As soon as whatever device measures timelessness or things that are timeless returns to a time passing state, all information about its timeless state is now corrupted by time passing. Again, this is a man made concept, timelessness. Time altering with acceleration still is not "timelessness", time is just altered.

Not being affected by time is different than timelessness. Timelessness would mean that there is no yesterday, today or tomorrow. Timelessness means that nothing could occur, the bringing about a person's salvation could never be experienced as there would be no change in their status from before to after. What glory exists for God if He cannot experience our transformation and growth. It says in the scriptures that Jesus increased in stature amongst God and man. How could Jesus increase in God's eyes for anything if there is no passage of time? Work requires the passage of time. If there is no time there are no works. It is a ridiculous idea.

I see you do not understand time dilation and are stuck in old Newtonian (pre special relativity) concepts. If you do not believe what had been proven to exist concerning time dilation as put forward by Einstein – calling such a revolutionary concept a “ridiculous idea” – obviously not much I could offer will change your mind.

All this deals with things that were being introduced 100 years ago. Bringing you up to date is not possible as long as you reject special reflectivity as ridiculous. Dark energy is pushing the limits special reflectivity.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I see you do not understand time dilation and are stuck in old Newtonian (pre special relativity) concepts. If you do not believe what had been proven to exist concerning time dilation as put forward by Einstein – calling such a revolutionary concept a “ridiculous idea” – obviously not much I could offer will change your mind.

All this deals with things that were being introduced 100 years ago. Bringing you up to date is not possible as long as you reject special reflectivity as ridiculous. Dark energy is pushing the limits special reflectivity.

The Traveler

We were not talking about relativity. How could I reject something we weren't talking about. You are jumping to large judgements about my statements and assuming things you don't know.

Nothing has been proven as to time dilation or even the theory of relativity, note the word "theory". Do I take a theory as truth? No. Can I believe in a theory and yet not take it as truth? Sure.

You are going to have a very difficult time proving that "timelessness" (a lack of past, present and future) is not a man-made idea. How are you going to prove that? With other man made theories? That is not proof.

I am stating that I don't see how one can believe in the gospel and the concept of "timelessness" at the same time. One refutes the other, they are not compatible.

Without trying to prove the theory of timelessness (that time does not exist - which would have to be true for all things including us now), explain to me how you think God's work is to "bring to pass..." (a process of time) is compatible with 'there is no past, present or future'?

The bottom line is that there is nothing good that comes from timelessness as all would be stagnant. Here is an example of your timelessness; 2 Nephi " 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

Here is the answer you could have provided; "In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses."

In other words, even if you believed in this theory, which is fine - I don't fault you for that, it is still not timelessness. You tried to suggest that if I understood the theory of relativity that I would believe in timelessness, which is still ridiculous to me even though I understand the theory of special relativity probably more so than most people in this world. If a theory contradicts an aspect of the gospel, I am going to go with the gospel. You can be swayed by the theories of men if you want. For me, I will stick with the gospel teachings outweighing the theories of man.

[Traveler]

We were not talking about relativity. How could I reject something we weren't talking about. You are jumping to large judgements about my statements and assuming things you don't know.

Nothing has been proven as to time dilation or even the theory of relativity, note the word "theory". Do I take a theory as truth? No. Can I believe in a theory and yet not take it as truth? Sure.

You are going to have a very difficult time proving that "timelessness" (a lack of past, present and future) is not a man-made idea. How are you going to prove that? With other man made theories? That is not proof.

I am stating that I don't see how one can believe in the gospel and the concept of "timelessness" at the same time. One refutes the other, they are not compatible.

Without trying to prove the theory of timelessness (that time does not exist - which would have to be true for all things including us now), explain to me how you think God's work is to "bring to pass..." (a process of time) is compatible with 'there is no past, present or future'?

The bottom line is that there is nothing good that comes from timelessness as all would be stagnant. Here is an example of your timelessness; 2 Nephi " 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

Here is the answer you could have provided; "In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses."

In other words, even if you believed in this theory, which is fine - I don't fault you for that, it is still not timelessness. You tried to suggest that if I understood the theory of relativity that I would believe in timelessness, which is still ridiculous to me even though I understand the theory of special relativity probably more so than most people in this world. If a theory contradicts an aspect of the gospel, I am going to go with the gospel. You can be swayed by the theories of men if you want. For me, I will stick with the gospel teachings outweighing the theories of man.

 

Time dilation has been demonstrated to occur.  This was done by setting two atomic clocks into synchronization then sending one clock into orbit (space).   Knowing the velocity difference they were able to check for time dilation between the two clocks and it was exactly as predicted by special reflectivity.   Using this proven dilation, time stops at the speed of light. 

 

I am also surprised at the stand you are taking on the term “theory”.  There are many theories in science that are accepted as truth.  For example mathematics is based on number theory.  The binary operation of addition for example is part of number theory.  So you are telling me that you do not believe that 2 + 3 = 5 can be understood as truth because it is explained by a theory????

 

I am quite confused that you believe empirical evidence is contrary to gospel teaching.- I am not sure I believe such a theory has any foundation in reality.  I know that Gnostic philosophy denies all empirical evidence as being unreal and thus that Jesus was never actually a physical being.  I think you ought to be careful in rejecting empirical evidence because empirical evidence is contrary to the gospel.  It is my understanding that the LDS church disagrees with such notions and in fact sponsors the teaching of empirical sciences in its supported universities and schools. 

 

I think that Elder Eyring would be quite surprised to know his father was well schooled and devoted to sciences so highly contrary to gospel principles. 

[Traveler]

Time dilation has been demonstrated to occur.  This was done by setting two atomic clocks into synchronization then sending one clock into orbit (space).   Knowing the velocity difference they were able to check for time dilation between the two clocks and it was exactly as predicted by special reflectivity.   Using this proven dilation, time stops at the speed of light. 

 

I am also surprised at the stand you are taking on the term “theory”.  There are many theories in science that are accepted as truth.  For example mathematics is based on number theory.  The binary operation of addition for example is part of number theory.  So you are telling me that you do not believe that 2 + 3 = 5 can be understood as truth because it is explained by a theory????

 

I am quite confused that you believe empirical evidence is contrary to gospel teaching.- I am not sure I believe such a theory has any foundation in reality.  I know that Gnostic philosophy denies all empirical evidence as being unreal and thus that Jesus was never actually a physical being.  I think you ought to be careful in rejecting empirical evidence because empirical evidence is contrary to the gospel.  It is my understanding that the LDS church disagrees with such notions and in fact sponsors the teaching of empirical sciences in its supported universities and schools. 

 

I think that Elder Eyring would be quite surprised to know his father was well schooled and devoted to sciences so highly contrary to gospel principles. 

I am having second thought about this post - thinking that we are disconnected and talking about two different things or ideas.  So I want to apologize and see if I can get on the same page with your thinking.  Can you give me any examples where there has been a preponderance of overwhelming empirical evidence of human discovery that is contrary to revealed divine truths?   It has been my observation that the caution given concerning human theories is more related to manmade religious theories and not so much divine criticism intended to direct seekers of truth towards rejecting empirical evidence.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am having second thought about this post - thinking that we are disconnected and talking about two different things or ideas.  So I want to apologize and see if I can get on the same page with your thinking.  Can you give me any examples where there has been a preponderance of overwhelming empirical evidence of human discovery that is contrary to revealed divine truths?   It has been my observation that the caution given concerning human theories is more related to manmade religious theories and not so much divine criticism intended to direct seekers of truth towards rejecting empirical evidence.

Thanks for your response,

 

Even though you are moving away from the specific issue of timelessness, let me say that the idea that time could stop at the speed of light is only in relation to (i.e. - relativity) a reference point of time.  In other words, even in that theroy timelessness could not exist by itself as it would have to be referenced back to time.

Also, most of our knowledge, in almost any field of study, is based in theory.  The reason for that is because we do not know all.  One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.  Because we are in a world in which there was a veil placed over us and the situation was designed for that purpose, to be tested under the veil, whatever we learn will be in the setting of not knowing everything there is to know about the particular topic.  This will always leave a little room to say, "it depends".  Or, to say, "could be".  Whereas, knowledge that comes through faith can turn into "I know". 

 

As far as your main questions with your last post, I think the caution has to do more with what people do with information than whether it is true or not. In the scriptures we are warned to not be overzealous. The problem with man made truths always goes back to the tower of Babel example. People become prideful in their own knowledge and depend less on the Lord.  The dependending less on the Lord has nothing to do with how pure the information is.  It only depends on where they think the source of the information comes from.  If man starts to think that they are the ones who discover knowledge then there is a problem.  If one jumps on the bandwagon of "We can figure this out for ourselves, by our self" then one is, at the same time, turning away from spiritual influences.

 

If one thinks the purpose of this life is the discovery of secular information then one turns away from the real reason we are here.  In a similar vein, if one loves money and the pursuit of money they will turn away from spiritual things.  Money in and of itself is not evil.  It is the love of money that is evil.  SImilarly, knowledge and truth is not evil!  And I think that is what you are trying to argue.  I am not arguing that point.  I am only arguing that making one's love and passion scientific discovery with a view that there is some personal reward for such discovery without having an eye single to the glory of God, will amount to nothing. Knowledge is given to man to advance the purposes of God.  If man takes it to advance their own purposes then it turns to a source of evil.  The same is said about money.  We cannot serve God and mammon.

 

Just keep in mind that when you say "human discovery" you are only refering to things that we already knew before coming to this world.  This is why "purpose" is the more important topic, not whether one topic is true or not.

 

President Eyring, May 6, 2001; "The thirst for education that comes with the change the gospel brings 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 begin to seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride, which will take us away from eternal life.

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."

 

Let me reinforce this idea from President Eyring; If one seeks learning to exalt oneself (i.e. - the whole idea of human discovery) it leads to selfishness and pride "which will take us away from eternal life."  This is irregardless of whether it is true or not.  I think you might be suggesting that if it is really a true idea it won't take us away from eternal life.  I think that idea is false and goes against what President Eyring is saying here.  It is the purpose for which it is done that takes away.  I think you should really come to grips with the fact that if the purpose is not done with an eye single to the glory of God then learning, even truth, could lead away from eternal life.  I know that would be hard for you to swallow.  The glory of truth is not in the obtaining them (in part because we already obtained them in pre-mortal existence), it is the purpose for which they are used.

 

Human discovery is not contrary to the teachings of the gospel any more than obtaining money is.  The point in which it clashes is the purpose, the love of it above the love for the purposes of God, and its use. If one, for example, uses technology to send pornographic images to thousands of people, it is evil.  If one uses scientific discovery to refine amphetamines and sell it on the street, that is evil. It comes down to purpose and use.  For example, the individual who discovers some chemistry to refine street drugs, the discovery of truth (the chemistry) became a tool for evil.

[Traveler]

Thanks for your response,

 

Even though you are moving away from the specific issue of timelessness, let me say that the idea that time could stop at the speed of light is only in relation to (i.e. - relativity) a reference point of time.  In other words, even in that theroy timelessness could not exist by itself as it would have to be referenced back to time.

Also, most of our knowledge, in almost any field of study, is based in theory.  The reason for that is because we do not know all.  One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.  Because we are in a world in which there was a veil placed over us and the situation was designed for that purpose, to be tested under the veil, whatever we learn will be in the setting of not knowing everything there is to know about the particular topic.  This will always leave a little room to say, "it depends".  Or, to say, "could be".  Whereas, knowledge that comes through faith can turn into "I know". 

 

As far as your main questions with your last post, I think the caution has to do more with what people do with information than whether it is true or not. In the scriptures we are warned to not be overzealous. The problem with man made truths always goes back to the tower of Babel example. People become prideful in their own knowledge and depend less on the Lord.  The dependending less on the Lord has nothing to do with how pure the information is.  It only depends on where they think the source of the information comes from.  If man starts to think that they are the ones who discover knowledge then there is a problem.  If one jumps on the bandwagon of "We can figure this out for ourselves, by our self" then one is, at the same time, turning away from spiritual influences.

 

If one thinks the purpose of this life is the discovery of secular information then one turns away from the real reason we are here.  In a similar vein, if one loves money and the pursuit of money they will turn away from spiritual things.  Money in and of itself is not evil.  It is the love of money that is evil.  SImilarly, knowledge and truth is not evil!  And I think that is what you are trying to argue.  I am not arguing that point.  I am only arguing that making one's love and passion scientific discovery with a view that there is some personal reward for such discovery without having an eye single to the glory of God, will amount to nothing. Knowledge is given to man to advance the purposes of God.  If man takes it to advance their own purposes then it turns to a source of evil.  The same is said about money.  We cannot serve God and mammon.

 

Just keep in mind that when you say "human discovery" you are only refering to things that we already knew before coming to this world.  This is why "purpose" is the more important topic, not whether one topic is true or not.

 

President Eyring, May 6, 2001; "The thirst for education that comes with the change the gospel brings 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 begin to seek learning to exalt ourselves alone, it leads to selfishness and pride, which will take us away from eternal life.

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."

 

Let me reinforce this idea from President Eyring; If one seeks learning to exalt oneself (i.e. - the whole idea of human discovery) it leads to selfishness and pride "which will take us away from eternal life."  This is irregardless of whether it is true or not.  I think you might be suggesting that if it is really a true idea it won't take us away from eternal life.  I think that idea is false and goes against what President Eyring is saying here.  It is the purpose for which it is done that takes away.  I think you should really come to grips with the fact that if the purpose is not done with an eye single to the glory of God then learning, even truth, could lead away from eternal life.  I know that would be hard for you to swallow.  The glory of truth is not in the obtaining them (in part because we already obtained them in pre-mortal existence), it is the purpose for which they are used.

 

Human discovery is not contrary to the teachings of the gospel any more than obtaining money is.  The point in which it clashes is the purpose, the love of it above the love for the purposes of God, and its use. If one, for example, uses technology to send pornographic images to thousands of people, it is evil.  If one uses scientific discovery to refine amphetamines and sell it on the street, that is evil. It comes down to purpose and use.  For example, the individual who discovers some chemistry to refine street drugs, the discovery of truth (the chemistry) became a tool for evil.

There is a reason that I am moving away from the specific issue of timelessness.  When we build a house we must first lay a foundation long before the roof can be put into place.  Before we can move forward in understanding truth we must deal with the relationship of truth to empirical evidence.  One problem many religious thinkers have with empirical evidence, appears to me to be related to a misunderstanding between empirical evidence and “a sign”.  If you are not sure on this point then before we can proceed we should deal with this construct.  But I will assume you can make this distinction and move forward.

 

I will take this statement “One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.”  This statement cannot possibly be true.  Think about it for a minute.  It is making a 100% declaration without knowing 100%.  Therefore, even if there is any possibility it is true then it is false.   At the same time, if there is any possibility of it not being 100% true then it is false.

 

The problem is not with truth or the empirical evidence of truth.  The problem is in attempting to assemble any understanding of truth by filtering empirical evidence and thinking that we can continue on the path of truth.  Your example of prideful individuals is an excellent example of individuals selectively considering the empirical evidence that suits them.  The scriptures tell us that all truth is established by two or more witnesses.  I am correlating a witness to empirical evidence.   If you do not realize the correlation between a witness and empirical evidence then we are at an impasse for truth as I understand to be defined by G-d.

 

Jesus dealt directly with those that would filter empirical evidence to arrive at what they intended to project as truth.  He used the phrase – Those that have eyes but will not see and those that have ears but will not hear.  The problem was not that there is no empirical evidence (things to see or hear) but that through selective hearing and seeing of empirical evidence that witness to truth is being exercised in order to make a lie.

 

Some will attempt to filter empirical evidence by projecting the idea that spiritual things are not related in any way to empirical evidence.   However, Jesus related spiritual things to empirical constructs through what we call parables.  He demonstrated that the best way to arrive at spiritual understanding was through understanding what we learn through experience with empirical experiments.   Alma in the Book of Alma, within the Book of Mormon takes this a step farther.  He draws upon the empirical knowledge that come from the empirical experiment of planting a seed as a method of developing faith – faith being a foundation of spiritual understanding.  The point being that rather than separating the empirical from spiritual – the miracle of understanding truth is in integrating the two.

 

I honestly cringe when someone says or implies that there are truths that more important than other truth.  Not because this is not possible but because this becomes an excuse to filter empirical evidence that G-d has provided to help bring us to truth in order that we not be deceived by a lie.   This now takes us back to the first statement:  “One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.”  I would amend this statement to: “No one can continue on the straight and narrow path of truth by deliberately rejecting or filtering any empirical evidence – regardless of how insignificant they may think of it at the time.”

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a reason that I am moving away from the specific issue of timelessness.  When we build a house we must first lay a foundation long before the roof can be put into place.  Before we can move forward in understanding truth we must deal with the relationship of truth to empirical evidence.  One problem many religious thinkers have with empirical evidence, appears to me to be related to a misunderstanding between empirical evidence and “a sign”.  If you are not sure on this point then before we can proceed we should deal with this construct.  But I will assume you can make this distinction and move forward.

 

I will take this statement “One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.”  This statement cannot possibly be true.  Think about it for a minute.  It is making a 100% declaration without knowing 100%.  Therefore, even if there is any possibility it is true then it is false.   At the same time, if there is any possibility of it not being 100% true then it is false.

 

The problem is not with truth or the empirical evidence of truth.  The problem is in attempting to assemble any understanding of truth by filtering empirical evidence and thinking that we can continue on the path of truth.  Your example of prideful individuals is an excellent example of individuals selectively considering the empirical evidence that suits them.  The scriptures tell us that all truth is established by two or more witnesses.  I am correlating a witness to empirical evidence.   If you do not realize the correlation between a witness and empirical evidence then we are at an impasse for truth as I understand to be defined by G-d.

 

Jesus dealt directly with those that would filter empirical evidence to arrive at what they intended to project as truth.  He used the phrase – Those that have eyes but will not see and those that have ears but will not hear.  The problem was not that there is no empirical evidence (things to see or hear) but that through selective hearing and seeing of empirical evidence that witness to truth is being exercised in order to make a lie.

 

Some will attempt to filter empirical evidence by projecting the idea that spiritual things are not related in any way to empirical evidence.   However, Jesus related spiritual things to empirical constructs through what we call parables.  He demonstrated that the best way to arrive at spiritual understanding was through understanding what we learn through experience with empirical experiments.   Alma in the Book of Alma, within the Book of Mormon takes this a step farther.  He draws upon the empirical knowledge that come from the empirical experiment of planting a seed as a method of developing faith – faith being a foundation of spiritual understanding.  The point being that rather than separating the empirical from spiritual – the miracle of understanding truth is in integrating the two.

 

I honestly cringe when someone says or implies that there are truths that more important than other truth.  Not because this is not possible but because this becomes an excuse to filter empirical evidence that G-d has provided to help bring us to truth in order that we not be deceived by a lie.   This now takes us back to the first statement:  “One cannot be 100% about anything without knowing 100%.”  I would amend this statement to: “No one can continue on the straight and narrow path of truth by deliberately rejecting or filtering any empirical evidence – regardless of how insignificant they may think of it at the time.”

I disagree with your description of Jesus' statement.  He was refering to not seeing or hearing through spiritual eyes and ears.  They saw and heard through their intellect, through the brain, the body but not through the spirit.  This goes back to your rejection of our current status of a dual being with dual natures and dual capabilities despite Elder Bednar, President Mckay and Paul's description of our dual being status. Jesus is also teaching that dual being status.  He is teaching that when a person fails to listen to the spirit, eventually they become as if they are a single being, a natural man, only listening to their physical nature.  Then they cannot see or hear spiritually learned material.

 

Isaiah 35 and Zachariah 11 talk about spiritual blindness, "the right eye blind".  The "right eye" is what sees spiritual things, the "left eye" sees physical things, metaphorically speaking.  Jesus is refering to those prophesies from the old testiment that those people knew well and understood that there are two eyes - the right and the left, or, in other words, the spiritual eyes and the physical eyes. 

 

You should study what is meant by "right eye" as well as "right arm".

 

Many modern day talks are dedicated to the difference between learning things spiritually vs secular learning.  There is a difference even though you reject that idea. How it is learned does matter, it is not just the "what" is learned.

[Traveler]

I disagree with your description of Jesus' statement.  He was refering to not seeing or hearing through spiritual eyes and ears.  They saw and heard through their intellect, through the brain, the body but not through the spirit.  This goes back to your rejection of our current status of a dual being with dual natures and dual capabilities despite Elder Bednar, President Mckay and Paul's description of our dual being status. Jesus is also teaching that dual being status.  He is teaching that when a person fails to listen to the spirit, eventually they become as if they are a single being, a natural man, only listening to their physical nature.  Then they cannot see or hear spiritually learned material.

 

Isaiah 35 and Zachariah 11 talk about spiritual blindness, "the right eye blind".  The "right eye" is what sees spiritual things, the "left eye" sees physical things, metaphorically speaking.  Jesus is refering to those prophesies from the old testiment that those people knew well and understood that there are two eyes - the right and the left, or, in other words, the spiritual eyes and the physical eyes. 

 

You should study what is meant by "right eye" as well as "right arm".

 

Many modern day talks are dedicated to the difference between learning things spiritually vs secular learning.  There is a difference even though you reject that idea. How it is learned does matter, it is not just the "what" is learned.

Hmmmm

 

Can you give me an example of a spritual truth that is contrary to overwhelming and consistent empirical witness?  Or for which there is no possible empirical witness?  You say there are many modern day talks dedicated specific to this principle - All that I am asking for is an example of some thing that is only learned spiritually and has no possible empirical means of learning or enhansing understanding.

 

Also you do not seem to understand that I accept the human soul as having a spiritual and physical (dual) nature.  It is my observation and understanding that the two natures need to be (must be) integrated in order to be made whole.  Only by integrating the two natures into one wholeness of the soul is Celestial possible.  Do you believe a unintegrated spirit can abide a Celestial glory?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmmm

 

Can you give me an example of a spritual truth that is contrary to overwhelming and consistent empirical witness?  Or for which there is no possible empirical witness?  You say there are many modern day talks dedicated specific to this principle - All that I am asking for is an example of some thing that is only learned spiritually and has no possible empirical means of learning or enhansing understanding.

 

Also you do not seem to understand that I accept the human soul as having a spiritual and physical (dual) nature.  It is my observation and understanding that the two natures need to be (must be) integrated in order to be made whole.  Only by integrating the two natures into one wholeness of the soul is Celestial possible.  Do you believe a unintegrated spirit can abide a Celestial glory?

We are not in a Celestial state right now.  This dual natured existence is just a temporary state that relates to our current condition. This is a unique state that requires having a corrupted body and a veil.  With a perfected, glorified body that never separates from the spirit, the situation changes, then it is integrated and made "one" as Jesus and God are now.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmmm

 

Can you give me an example of a spritual truth that is contrary to overwhelming and consistent empirical witness?  Or for which there is no possible empirical witness?  You say there are many modern day talks dedicated specific to this principle - All that I am asking for is an example of some thing that is only learned spiritually and has no possible empirical means of learning or enhansing understanding.

 

Also you do not seem to understand that I accept the human soul as having a spiritual and physical (dual) nature.  It is my observation and understanding that the two natures need to be (must be) integrated in order to be made whole.  Only by integrating the two natures into one wholeness of the soul is Celestial possible.  Do you believe a unintegrated spirit can abide a Celestial glory?

We are talking past each other because you keep wanting to suggest that my discussion is between spiritual discernment versus empirical witness and it never has been.  I have tried to explain to you that there is a difference between secular learning versus spiritual learning.  In other words, the learning of man versus things learned by the spirit.  Both of those learning experiences can be done through empirical processes so how is one to separate out what you keep going back to this "empirical witness".  Definition empirical; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."  Both spiritual and secular learning can be based in empirical witness. 

 

The only way to seperate out those two forms of learning is to understand spiritual discernment.  That may be a topic for another thread. 

 

Here is an attempt to answer your request;  Overwhelmingly, most people in this world have not seen God while in this life, so based in that description of empirical evidence and witness that would suggest that God cannot be seen while mortal.  However, one can have a spiritual understanding, (i.e. - the witness of the Holy Ghost) speak to our spirit that Joseph Smith did indeed see God and that he therefore can be seen.

 

If I am off the mark then you are going to have to explain more what you mean by empirical witness and why that is important in this discussion.  To me, empirical witness works for both types of learning.

[Traveler]

We are talking past each other because you keep wanting to suggest that my discussion is between spiritual discernment versus empirical witness and it never has been.  I have tried to explain to you that there is a difference between secular learning versus spiritual learning.  In other words, the learning of man versus things learned by the spirit.  Both of those learning experiences can be done through empirical processes so how is one to separate out what you keep going back to this "empirical witness".  Definition empirical; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."  Both spiritual and secular learning can be based in empirical witness. 

 

The only way to seperate out those two forms of learning is to understand spiritual discernment.  That may be a topic for another thread. 

 

Here is an attempt to answer your request;  Overwhelmingly, most people in this world have not seen God while in this life, so based in that description of empirical evidence and witness that would suggest that God cannot be seen while mortal.  However, one can have a spiritual understanding, (i.e. - the witness of the Holy Ghost) speak to our spirit that Joseph Smith did indeed see God and that he therefore can be seen.

 

If I am off the mark then you are going to have to explain more what you mean by empirical witness and why that is important in this discussion.  To me, empirical witness works for both types of learning.

 

I do not believe G-d divides truth - I believe the division of truth is a quest and escuse for the natural man.  Jesus taught that if we cannot love man that we see how can we love G-d we cannot see?  Any scientist understand rhetorical logic well enough to understand the error in thinking that things not discovered are not true but rather that the quest for truth is the quest to see what no one has seen before.  Is that not what Jesus taught - to see and hear what we have not seen or heard before. 

 

The Book of Mormon talkes about the process to wake up.  Or to become aware of what we have not been aware of.  But many want to think they have arrived at what is necessary for salvation and intend to sleep through everything else.

[Roseslipper]

Hmmmmm - I did not see an answer to the question I asked. I will ask it again. Question: Is the inability to remember something that was once known, proof that such a memory is corrupt or has been corrupted?

The Traveler

Traveler, it is not corrupted!!!!!!!

[Roseslipper]

I do not believe G-d divides truth - I believe the division of truth is a quest and escuse for the natural man.  Jesus taught that if we cannot love man that we see how can we love G-d we cannot see?  Any scientist understand rhetorical logic well enough to understand the error in thinking that things not discovered are not true but rather that the quest for truth is the quest to see what no one has seen before.  Is that not what Jesus taught - to see and hear what we have not seen or heard before. 

 

The Book of Mormon talkes about the process to wake up.  Or to become aware of what we have not been aware of.  But many want to think they have arrived at what is necessary for salvation and intend to sleep through everything else.

I think it is wrong for any one of us to think we have arrived to the point that we think we have salvation, or that we made it that we are going to be in the Celestrial KIngdom they might be surprised when the find out they didnt make it.   Theres this old poem I can not give it any justice cause I can barely remember it.  When you get to Heaven dont look and steer at them, they might be wondering how you got there as well.  Were all a work in progress.  We have the opposite problem traveler you are a smart ma a scientist and I am the opposite not smart, not educated, but I do have alot of wisdom.  So we both need to work with it.  And their needs to be a balance.I hope I didnt get off of track.  Im just trying to help in my small simple way..

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not believe G-d divides truth - I believe the division of truth is a quest and escuse for the natural man.  Jesus taught that if we cannot love man that we see how can we love G-d we cannot see?  Any scientist understand rhetorical logic well enough to understand the error in thinking that things not discovered are not true but rather that the quest for truth is the quest to see what no one has seen before.  Is that not what Jesus taught - to see and hear what we have not seen or heard before. 

 

The Book of Mormon talkes about the process to wake up.  Or to become aware of what we have not been aware of.  But many want to think they have arrived at what is necessary for salvation and intend to sleep through everything else.

I do not believe God divides truth either but He divides desire.  Therefore it is the method in which truth is received that is the most important.  Ammon explains the method; "21 And now behold, my brethren, what ^anatural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is ^bnone that ^cknoweth these things, save it be the penitent.

 22 Yea, he that ^arepenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good ^bworks, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the ^cmysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be ^dgiven to ^ereveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance."

 

No, Jesus taught to turn to God to find truth, to not listen to the teachings of man.  The challenges we face in this life is to teach faith in the Lord and dependence on Him.

 

The awareness is a spiritual awareness. The awareness is to recognize these are things we already knew to be true, it is a remembrance.  You speak of King Benjamin's talk on awareness in the Book of Mormon but I think you should read it again; "“And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel."

 

In other words, as one learns more and more truth, one learns that is is nothing compared to what God has and therefore in humility we seek what God has more than our nothingness could provide. That is what the truth provides.

[Awakened]

I've been scanning through this thread and I don't see what exactly we're debating. What is the question that needs to be answered?

[Traveler]

I've been scanning through this thread and I don't see what exactly we're debating. What is the question that needs to be answered?

 

The essence of the thread is the question: if the fall of mankind is both physical and spiritual.  Does the fall include the "second death" which is spiritual death or separation from G-d or was the fall only the physical bringing about mortality and that the second death would not actually take place until the final judgment.  Secondary to this discussion is a question concerning the flesh - that which is carnal and sensual.  Is there any inherent goodness in fallen mortal flesh or is the mortal physical experience submerged in corrupt fallen flesh from which there is no possibility of good.  In essence all good comes exclusively from our spiritual nature and all evil comes from the natural man which is our fallen physical nature.

 

The essence of the thread is the question: is the fall of mankind both physical and spiritual?  Does the fall include the "second death" which is spiritual death or separation from G-d or was the fall only the physical bringing about mortality and that the second death would not actually take place until the final judgment?  Secondary to this discussion is a question concerning the flesh or that which is carnal and sensual.  Is there any inherent divine goodness in fallen mortal flesh or is the mortal physical experience submerged in corrupt fallen flesh from which there is no possibility of good. 

 

In essence there are two possibilities being discussed.  First:  that we are dual beings of two separate opposing and distinct natures.  Of which all good comes exclusively from our spiritual nature and all evil comes from the natural man which is our fallen physical nature.

 

Second possibility:  that both our spirit essence and our physical essence come into our mortal existence under fallen (corrupt or handicapped conditions).  That the veil handicaps our spirit from our previous spiritual experience with our Father in Heaven and mortality handicaps our physical experience.  Thus the natural man condition is a dual nature challenge that brings about both a spiritual and physical challenge to this life experience.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The essence of the thread is the question: if the fall of mankind is both physical and spiritual.  Does the fall include the "second death" which is spiritual death or separation from G-d or was the fall only the physical bringing about mortality and that the second death would not actually take place until the final judgment.  Secondary to this discussion is a question concerning the flesh - that which is carnal and sensual.  Is there any inherent goodness in fallen mortal flesh or is the mortal physical experience submerged in corrupt fallen flesh from which there is no possibility of good.  In essence all good comes exclusively from our spiritual nature and all evil comes from the natural man which is our fallen physical nature.

 

The essence of the thread is the question: is the fall of mankind both physical and spiritual?  Does the fall include the "second death" which is spiritual death or separation from G-d or was the fall only the physical bringing about mortality and that the second death would not actually take place until the final judgment?  Secondary to this discussion is a question concerning the flesh or that which is carnal and sensual.  Is there any inherent divine goodness in fallen mortal flesh or is the mortal physical experience submerged in corrupt fallen flesh from which there is no possibility of good. 

 

In essence there are two possibilities being discussed.  First:  that we are dual beings of two separate opposing and distinct natures.  Of which all good comes exclusively from our spiritual nature and all evil comes from the natural man which is our fallen physical nature.

 

Second possibility:  that both our spirit essence and our physical essence come into our mortal existence under fallen (corrupt or handicapped conditions).  That the veil handicaps our spirit from our previous spiritual experience with our Father in Heaven and mortality handicaps our physical experience.  Thus the natural man condition is a dual nature challenge that brings about both a spiritual and physical challenge to this life experience.

Traveler,

Thanks for breaking that down. 

 

I think there is a bit of a hybrid of the two possibilities you gave.  I think we enter this world with spirits that are good, pure and innocent.  We are exposed to mortal corruption even at birth via the mortal, fallen body but we are told it has no effect on the spirits of those that die before the age of accountability.  I would assume we are all that way until we become accountable as it is sin, specifically, that corrupts the spirit.  As we cannot sin until the age of accountability then the spirit does not enter this world corrupted.  It has to start to take on the features of the body to become corrupted.  The body introduces that choice.

 

There is good that occurs with opposition, so to say that nothing but evil comes from the body is not fair.  The spirit that endures well and masters the body will have received much good from the experience as Paul did with his "thorn in the flesh".  The body alone though cannot produce good or evil, any more than a bullet could produce good or evil by itself.  It is only what is carried with us via the spiritual lessons and experiences that are deemed either good or bad.  

 

The moment I have an evil thought pop in my head, I have not yet sinned unless I foster that thought or act on it or desire the thought.  If I become hungry on Fast Sunday, I have not sinned unless I give into the carnal desire.  If a naughty web site ad pops up on the computer screen and one sees it, have they sinned?  Not if they turn away from it, close the site and try to avoid it.  If they click on it and pursue it further, then yes, sin has taken place. The body allows for "pop-ups" to occur in our life.  Occasionally, I feel angry, jealous, greed, lust, etc. as I live my life in this carnal body.  It is what I do with those passions and desires that could turn it to good if I learn to master them or evil if I give into them as one who is natural.  It is unnatural to try to aviod them, that is not doing what comes natural to the body. 

 

Ultimately, the good or the evil comes from the spirits choices between following the promptings of the spirit or following the promptings of the carnal mind (the human brain). The body cannot be called evil because it has no choice, it does what it does, any more than a rock could be called evil, or a computer.  The body will not be judged even though God will take into account the circumstances offered by the body as what happens with someone who is born with three chromosomes 21. The body, or the "thorn in the flesh" is so we don't exalt ourselves beyond measure, so we can learn and be tested in very primitive areas, faith and doing what we are told. When one does well with this little stewardship, bigger stewardships can be given.

 

One more metaphor .... If a future pilot learns how to fly an airplane on a simulator one would never suggest the simulator could fly.  Lessons could be learned by the simulator which would help the pilot when the time comes for the real plane.  The simulator may present dangers, like turbulant wind or other problems and the future pilot may even crash in the simulator.  But nothing is really lost by the crash as it is just a simulator.  Lessons are learned from it.  The simulator presents problems though, it is supposed to.  If the future pilot learns to like the bad aspects of the simulator, like flying the plane into a building, for example, then the pilot may take on the negative features from the simulator and use them in the real plane.  If the pilot uses the simulator to enjoy the experience of crashing, then the pilot has taken on those characteristics. We were all afraid of that possibility during the war in heaven and in fact a third of the host of heaven were so afraid, they said, "no way."  The rest of us had faith in the Savior that we didn't have to take on the characteristics of the carnal body, that we could be saved from it.

 

Likewise, this body could never "fly", it could never become eternal by itself and therefore would not be called "good".  Eternal things are "good".  In the end the body turns to dust and nothing comes of it until it is made something different, a glorified immortal and perfected body.  

[Awakened]

The essence of the thread is the question: if the fall of mankind is both physical and spiritual.  Does the fall include the "second death" which is spiritual death or separation from G-d or was the fall only the physical bringing about mortality and that the second death would not actually take place until the final judgment.  Secondary to this discussion is a question concerning the flesh - that which is carnal and sensual.  Is there any inherent goodness in fallen mortal flesh or is the mortal physical experience submerged in corrupt fallen flesh from which there is no possibility of good.  In essence all good comes exclusively from our spiritual nature and all evil comes from the natural man which is our fallen physical nature.

Ah, OK. The first question is very simple. When the Fall happened, there were two types of deaths that occured. Physical and spiritual, as we all know. But that was the FIRST spiritual death because we were separated completely from our Father in heaven. The veil over all our minds though, making us forget where we were, makes it bearable. The SECOND spiritual death will only occur to those who completely reject the Gospel and will suffer for their sins themselves. They will be separated again for a long while and then return to inherit the Telestial Kingdom when thier suffering is finished.

 

As to the second question, whether our mortal bodies have any saving grace to them by themselves, well, I really don't think so. HOWEVER, the body serves as much more than an anchor weighing us down. It is through it that we experience the world around us. If CONTROLLED PROPERLY, it can work mostly to our benefit. But if the body were calling the shots... That's the thing. Satan can tempt us and take control of us through the body if the spirit submits to it. So if the body was in charge, the Adversary would have full sway over us.

 

If we take that factor out though, our bodies probably wouldn't act so devilishly but only just. The behavior of the body is simply animalistic, doing what it wants, when it wants, no matter if it's good or bad. Survival and pleasure are its two goals. There is simply no scripture out there that supports the body having any spirit-like personality traits.

[Traveler]

Ah, OK. The first question is very simple. When the Fall happened, there were two types of deaths that occured. Physical and spiritual, as we all know. But that was the FIRST spiritual death because we were separated completely from our Father in heaven. The veil over all our minds though, making us forget where we were, makes it bearable. The SECOND spiritual death will only occur to those who completely reject the Gospel and will suffer for their sins themselves. They will be separated again for a long while and then return to inherit the Telestial Kingdom when thier suffering is finished.

 

As to the second question, whether our mortal bodies have any saving grace to them by themselves, well, I really don't think so. HOWEVER, the body serves as much more than an anchor weighing us down. It is through it that we experience the world around us. If CONTROLLED PROPERLY, it can work mostly to our benefit. But if the body were calling the shots... That's the thing. Satan can tempt us and take control of us through the body if the spirit submits to it. So if the body was in charge, the Adversary would have full sway over us.

 

If we take that factor out though, our bodies probably wouldn't act so devilishly but only just. The behavior of the body is simply animalistic, doing what it wants, when it wants, no matter if it's good or bad. Survival and pleasure are its two goals. There is simply no scripture out there that supports the body having any spirit-like personality traits.

 

Here is a question for you - when Adam and Eve fell - were they the only ones affected at that time?  Or did the fall of man change much more than just Adam and Eve?

 

My opinion is that the fall of man had an immediate effect on us all.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Here is a question for you - when Adam and Eve fell - were they the only ones affected at that time?  Or did the fall of man change much more than just Adam and Eve?

 

My opinion is that the fall of man had an immediate effect on us all.

The only "man" around that would qualify as a "man" were Adam and Eve, unless you are trying to say that we all had paradisical bodies given to each of us and put into a "garden of Eden" with the choice in front of us.  But I think you are right that we all were affeted by Adam's transgression as we were all destined to come to this world.  I don't think that has to translate into an issue that it had immediate effect.  If we were not in the presence of God before coming here but after Adam's trangression, where were we?  We couldn't be spiritually dead and in the presence of God at the same time.

 

Romans 5: "14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s ^atransgression, who is the ^bfigure of him that was to come.

 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ^aone man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of ^agrace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"