Seminarysnoozer

I think you are thinking this through and through, too far, beyond what I said and through to something more than what I said which is really bizarre. I haven't confused anything, only you have interpreted what I was saying as something confusing or something else. I never said that a Priesthood holder could pay for sins, that is something you made up. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? If you want to try to play some semantics game like "Our accountability and responsibility means that blessings are accountable to our obedience." Then go ahead and play that game, I am not interested. If you want to talk about the meaning of those phrases, fine, I would love to do that. The fact is that it is our obedience and our blessings and therefore it is our accountability. You can't detach the obedience and the blessings from someone. That is bizarre. If you want to use the phrases that our Prophets, scriptures and leaders use, then these are they; Elder Hales “Agency is to act with accountability and responsibility for our actions. Our agency is essential to the plan of salvation. With it we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.” In the October 1942 general conference, the First Presidency delivered a message to “the Saints in every land and clime,” in which they said, “By virtue of the authority in us vested as the First Presidency of the Church, we warn our people. … the Lord will hold us to a strict accountability.” Sister Elaine Cannon said; “Accountability is the natural product of agency and is the basis of the plan of life. We are responsible for our own actions and accountable to God for what we choose to do with our lives. Life is God’s gift to us, and what we do with it is our gift to him. In Galatians we read, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Gal. 6:7.)” Quentin Cook said; ““We live in perilous times when many believe we are not accountable to God and that we do not have personal responsibility or stewardship for ourselves or others. Many in the world are focused on self-gratification, put themselves first, and love pleasure more than they love righteousness. They do not believe they are their brother’s keeper. In the Church, however, we believe that these stewardships are a sacred trust.” and "Parents can also help children discover and develop their talents. We are responsible for the talents we have received. Children who are not taught that they are accountable for their time and talents are increasingly subject to the foolishness and unrighteousness that are so pervasive in the world." President Monson said in October 2010; “As I’ve contemplated the various aspects of choice, I’ve put them into three categories: first, the right of choice; second, the responsibility of choice; and third, the results of choice. I call these the three Rs of choice.” Articles of Faith 2 and 3: “ 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. 3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Elder Todd Christopherson; “When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.” D&C 101:78 “78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” D&C 58 “ 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.” In the manual “Teaching no Greater Call”; “A calling is a sacred opportunity to serve. It carries with it an accountability to the Lord. It should influence the way you live, governing your decisions and motivating you to be a faithful and wise servant.” Covenants make it so there is accountability. Obedience may refer to laws even outside covenants. If one has a testimony of the value of Covenants then there comes with it a knowledge of the power of accountability. Being anxiously engaged in a good cause goes beyond just obedience, it is a free will expression, it is doing right without being told what to do (obedience). We are not slaves we are stewards. The slave puts all the fault on the boss and takes no responsibility for the results of their actions, the steward answers to the boss and is not a slothful or unjust steward and pays usury. I never said pay for sins, that was your added comment. I never got that idea, you made that up. I was just talking about paying the usury and being responsible for our stewardships. Matthew 25 " 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury." Psalms 37:21 "The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth."

It is a basic characteristic of a Celestial being, to take joy in the success of others. How else can joy be eternal? If it was just based in our own personal success it would be limited. But when one masters love, they truly experience the joy of someone else success. We get a taste of that when our child does well in school or makes correct choices. To love your neighbor as your self will allow a person to have endless joy as all the successes are experienced as if you are doing it yourself. This is to inherit all that God has. To learn to love all is a required step to obtain that empathetic skill of having eternal joy. .... at least that is the "understanding" part of why it is needed and how it is important. I think part of learning to love your neighbor is why the family unit is so important, we get automatic trial runs at that concept on a daily basis.

I see what you are doing now, you are trying to play off the word Agent. The power of the priesthood might work a little better for that description, but I suppose there is some aspect of agency that is doing the Lord's will and therefore acting in His name. In the eyes of God, Jesus becomes liable for our actions but we are still responsible to Jesus for our actions. Agency requires responsibility, it is not a way out of accountability.

I think your description in incomplete without including some relationship between accountability, stewardship, responsibility and agency. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time explaining how souls with Down syndrome and a variety of other conditions as well as not having a chance to hear about the gospel don't automatically "by default" become an "agent of evil". Agency requires some level of accountability and responsibility, otherwise it really isn't agency, it becomes just a cause and effect. And I hope you are not trying to come to that conclusion, that life is a cause and effect, playing out calculable outcomes based in pre-mortal variables. Does a rat have agency when it is attracted to the cheese in the trap and he dies as a result? No, but it does have free will. It moves towards the cheese on its own. If man, on the other hand, chooses to make choices that lead to the traps in this life and ultimately untimely death, that could very well be something they are responsible for and then it can be called agency.

I think the severity of this issue depends on what a person thinks they are going to be judged by in the end. Are we judged on the final fund of knowledge or what we did with the limited knowledge we have available? We will be judged by what is in our heart and our faith will be a witness to it. We are not going to be judged on how right and exact we are in every doctrine. Otherwise it would be critical in terms of our salvation to make sure that God delivers all the information to us now. There are many aspects of the "gospel" that have not been revealed. Does that mean that the extent of our salvation is limited? I think you would say no. How is that possible? Because we are not being tested on our fund of knowledge. The test is what we do with the limited knowledge we have. "Limited" being an important part of the test. Having all knowledge would ruin the test of faith. If we only "believe" in the things that are absolutely known, where is the faith in that approach? I am not sure why so many want to cut faith out of the picture as if it is an unnecessary and primitive form of learning. That we should somehow jump straight from ignorance to knowledge. That is impossible. I think those people are going to miss the point of this life, that faith in Christ is the only way to learn and to have eternal knowledge and joy. There is no other way. It is perfectly okay to say 'I have faith in this principle but I don't have perfect knowledge about it" and God will judge positively that you have faith and not give the person a demerit for the not knowing. So, why take the doubtful road, the faith road has fewer bad outcomes.

I think part of how we reconcile this is to know that we chose this pathway. It would seem much more cruel and illogical to be "tortured" for something you never wanted to do in the first place. LDS believe this was part of the discussion before even coming here. We believe that all that are here wanted to be here. This is why covenants under priesthood authority are so important to us. If one willfully takes on a covenant with God then they willfully submit to all its possible outcomes. Which all of us have done before coming here. To break that covenant is to go against one's own word and promise which in turn deserves a certain punishment. If there is no punishment then there cannot be a reward and the covenant means nothing. To us, covenants are very important and should be done at an age of choice and responsibility. Is it "torture" if one takes a test and there is a possibility of not passing the test? If there is no chance for failing the test then there is no chance of passing the test. And if one cannot pass or fail the test then there is no reason to have the test in the first place and there would then be no purpose to our existence. If there is no purpose to our existence then that would necessitate believing in a God that does things without purpose and that would be a harder God to believe in then one that "tortures" for a reason, and lives by certain unchanging laws. If this then that. It would be hardest to believe in a God that is driven by whim or boredom or spontaneous randomness without purpose.

I don't know if it is happening more and more, it seems to have happened all along and will continue to happen. Our past President Hinckley explained; "Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since." As stated there "All they reached was a compromise of various points of view." What were those points of view? I would think it was as you described, "a search for a God or religion that suites their personality, or their personal beliefs." They knew of the importance of knowing the true nature of God because of scriptures like John 17: " 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Yeah, especially if they happen to notice that none of our artistic renderings of divine beings have halos. There might be some implied significance given to the circular food.

Agency is a privilege. But just like any privilege comes responsibility and accountability and the potential for abusing the privilege. Without accountability "agency" may just be free will. Like a child before the age of 8 can have free will but the agency comes after holding some amount of responsibility and accountability for the choice. There comes certain consequences that the person may be personally responsible for when given the "gift"of agency. With that responsibility comes the opportunity for advancement and progress. If we were never responsible for our choices then we could not gain any kind of "credit" or at least recognition for them either. ... its like playing a game of "battleship" with yourself versus an opponent. In the first way there is no real gain or loss, in the second there is potential for gain or loss. The potential for loss is what Lucifer threw a fit about but we all understood the power of the potential gain and see this agency as a gift and opportunity for growth. We, therefore, are willing to take on the responsibility of agency.

Unless the lessons and the tests are about "comfort" then that would be hard to distinguish one from the other. I think the lesson and the test is over "comfort". Where do we put the desire of the heart? Over things that provide physical comfort and are pleasing to the body versus spiritual comfort and things that are eternal and pleasing to the spirit. That is the lesson and the test. If the gospel is where we find our comfort or at least learn to like our comfort there, then the gospel is easy. If we find comfort in the things of the world or our concerns and focus is on making the physical more comfortable (i.e. - removing the thorn in the flesh in stead of just living with it) then that is to prove where we place our treasures, of the things of this world. If our heart is in the things of this world and that is where we find our comfort then the gospel is hard. "Comfort" and lessons are pretty much one in the same.

I think you have to ask yourself, what is the experience and refinement for? Just today I went out to a restaurant with a girlfriend that I've wanted to go to for quite some time. I was told the Chinese Salad was great so that is what I ordered. I hardly looked at the menu. My friend on the other hand took 15 minutes and many questions for our patient waiter until she finally made a decision. She took a few bites of what she ordered and then had some of mine. She then said "I should have ordered the Chinese Salad". The experienced gained in this life is to allow us to express our agency, to choose what we want. Especially when there is some ambivalence or reluctance to make the choice, refinement in our desires needs to occur. I believe there are some souls who have expressed well enough the desires of their hearts, there is no need to place before them some alternative choices (they don't need to look at the menu). Their faith is strong enough to say 'if God wants me to do it this way, that is what I choose.' Whereas the rest of us require a test of faith and a test of the true desire of our heart. The experience is one of understanding oneself better. What is really in the heart and in some ways develop a change of heart. If the individual who dies after living one hour in this life has a pure desire to be with God and live that type of life and God knows it, then there is nothing missed by not trying everything on the menu. Specifically, what "sorrow" do you think the soul that died as an infant feels before entering into the Celestial Kingdom, as they sit there in Paradise and have entered into His rest?

Thanks for your great response. I appreciate your willingness to have this conversation with me. I think you limiting the brain to those three functions is probably why you equate the subconscious to spiritual activity. "Thinking", I am assuming (tell me if I am wrong) is what you would describe as conscious thought. I am not sure what you would call subconscious "thinking". "Feeling" is mostly a conscious thing but what would you call a reflex seen in a person who is in a coma? If I pinch the toe of a person in a coma they may still respond with a withdrawal reflex, was it felt? The person may wake up from the coma and not remember anything that occurred during that time. The sensory firing of the neuron can be measured with electromyelogram even when the person is in a coma, unconscious state. Sleep is an unconscious state but if I spray a mist on someone's face while they are in dreaming sleep, suddenly they start dreaming that they are in a rain storm or swimming etc. Or people with sleep apnea often dream that they are drowning or choking. So how did they "feel" in an unconscious state? This is not unknown or some mystery. It has been measured over and over again. The sensory modalities within sleep are partially on even if they are not necessarily processed in the consciousness parts of the brain, in the frontal lobes and parts of the temporal lobes. The stimulus is registered with somatosensory evoked potential testing while in sleep. The brain uses as much energy at night, asleep, as it does during most of the day. Being in an unconscious state, in other words, is not shutting off the brain, the brain is "on" during that time. All the parts that are active in sleep, for example, is where the neuroanatomy of the subconscious lies. This is not an unknown or mysterious thing. Doing can also be done in a subconscious frame of mind. Ask any drunk driver or someone who has frontal lobe seizures, they do many things they are not consciously aware of. I would then say, measuring the activity of the brain during those states of mind would be the neuroanatomy equivalent to where the subconscious is located. And this has been done over and over again a million times. The thing, I think, you left out of what the brain does besides thinking, feeling and doing which is 'spontaneous imagination' and the creation of misinformation. I suppose you can put it into the "thinking" category but unlike your "black box" analogy, spontaneous imagination does not require any input. The brain is perfectly capable, on its own, without any input of making up various sensations, "mind's eye", fears, passions, likes and dislikes, preferences, filling in the holes of information with made up information, dreaming, psychosis, phobias, compulsions, automatisms, mannerisms, etc. If someone, for example, has a visual association cortex seizure, they may experience seeing a "made up by the brain" image of a person that does not exist or some monster or alien being or just a blob or shimmering lights etc. Did that come from the spirit? No. Did it come from any thought? No. Did it come from anything felt or done? No. When a person has Kluver-Bucy Syndrome and towards the end stages when they are not processing information very well and even become unaware of family members but become hypersexual and even develop sexual attractions to inappropriate objects where does that come from? Does it come from the spirit? No. Does it come from their own thought pattern, in other words they are doing it because they thought about acting that way and want to? No. So, where does it come from? It comes from uninhibited subconscious drives. When a person with Alzheimer's wanders up to the podium and interrupts the speaker to proclaim that she has married Joseph Smith and is now undergoing transfiguration as she speaks (which actually happened in our ward a few months ago), where does that thought come from? The spirit? No. It is from subconscious, uninhibited thought, revealing in part some of the subconscious thought patterns that normally get put into check by the logical parts of the brain. What is speaking when a person speaks under the influence of GHB? Is it the spirit? I would say no, I would say it is the subconscious speaking but in an altered way. ... you are getting my ADD going too, lol. Thanks for the conversation.

Mortality is with a certain purpose in mind, to qualify for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom and Eternal Life. I think a spirit who died before the age of accountability's entrance into the Celestial Kingdom preempts any self-pity one might feel for not having certain experiences in this fallen state. I think the eternal treasures far outweigh any missed earthly treasures and they will see it as far beneath them to feel any suffering for missing time in mortality. If I had to choose between a real castle and a sand castle I am not going to suffer one bit in giving up the sand castle for the real one.

I agree with this. If the older brother takes to heart what the father tells him, then he too will rejoice with equal enthusiasm. If the older brother does not rejoice with the father, then he really doesn't have "all" the father has. But it is there for the taking. We too should feel equally happy whenever anyone returns or finds there way into the fold no matter where they have been before. I think one of the underlying points of the story too is that "all" can be given without exhaustion. By giving "all" it isn't divided or lessened. And it can be "given"! Which means it doesn't have to be earned, penny for penny, it is an inheritance meaning it is given without it being a wage or of equal value for a certain service. We can be unprofitable servants and still have "all" (through the grace of Christ - as you stated). Thanks!

Yes, I did miss that. Thanks. Sorry DeseretKnight, I thought we were talking about LDS doctrine. As to other doctrine, I am not really qualified to discuss that with much detail.

So, what suffering does the child go through who lives only one hour or the child born without a brain, such as with anencephaly? Usually, the word "all" implies something that becomes a necessary step for anyone and everyone. I think that is too strong. Yes, for all of us that are left to make choices between good and evil that would apply as we sin then we have to suffer with repentance. But, for the child who dies before the age of accountability, specifically, what cross is carried? (I'm talking from the child's perspective, not the suffering from the parents who lost the child)

Okay. But then that act of faith took place before the child was born, it was an act of faith in keeping the first estate. To say that they were willing to be born as the faith requiring step, otherwise they are just along for the short ride. There was no decision to be made after keeping the first estate. As it says in Moroni, the effect of the fall of Adam has been taken away. Here you are pointing out it is as a result of how "we use suffering" and my point is that the child who dies in one hour didn't "use" anything in this life as there was no action on their part outside of the action to keep the first estate made long ago. More specifically there was no suffering experienced. And while here there was no action. And since they later don't feel any effect from this life as the effect of the fall of Adam is taken away from them, I am not sure how they can "use" any of that suffering even if you want to call something that isn't felt "suffering". That seems like a stretch to me. I don't think suffering is a requirement for those that are not required to suffer and have not experienced sin. D&C 19: " 15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— 19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men." I think it states pretty clearly here, when we talk about suffering, it is in relationship to not repenting from sin. Christ suffered these things so we do not have to if we repent. For those that do not need to repent, those that die before the age of accountability, I do not see how they suffer.

Obviously, the "suffering" we are talking about is related to sin, right? I just assumed that is what you were talking about. I guess not. You did say "and I don't mean just any suffering" and then go on to talk about "spiritual suffering". So, I am confused about your statements. Specifically, then, what kind of suffering are you talking about that can be experienced by an infant who might live less than an hour in this world? Moroni 8: " 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little cchildren are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me." ... "“He that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. “For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. “Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God” President Hinckley said; "The innocence of little children is another revelation which God has given through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph. The general practice is the baptism of infants to take away the effects of what is described as the sin of Adam and Eve. Under the doctrine of the Restoration, baptism is for the remission of one’s individual and personal sins. It becomes a covenant between God and man. It is performed at the age of accountability, when people are old enough to recognize right from wrong. It is by immersion, in symbolism of the death and burial of Jesus Christ and His coming forth in the Resurrection." If they aren't even old enough to recognize right from wrong, what suffering was experienced? He is saying here that little children are not under the effects of the Fall, there is nothing to take away until they are accountable. Explain what suffering you are talking about then for the child that lives one hour or is born without a brain to experience anything, anencephaly.

At the same time one thing gathered from Christ's life is that the knowing doesn't have to come in the form of experience based in the consequences of one's own actions. I think the child who dies with one day of life in this world can still "know" of the price paid for salvation without really experiencing anything in this world. To make faith grow suffering might be the price, as you stated. But there are individuals who don't need a test of faith, so, therefore, it is not "necessary". It isn't a rung of the ladder that all have to step on.

Thanks, in regard to your prodigal son idea, remember that there are many who will die that never experience sin, all those who die before the age of 8 and those that have diseases in which there was no real accountability between good and evil here. They will go onto glory without having any experience of "darkness". I could be very wrong but if you count the number of children that die before the age of 8 that ever was, that probably outnumbers the total number of members of the church both during Jesus day, those described in the Book of Mormon and those of our day combined. In other words, there will be a lot of people found in the Celestial Kingdom that did not experience straying away nor have to.

I think that is the "trick", to love the light. The gospel is easy when we love it, it is hard when our hearts are not in it. The gospel (the iron rod) is used to teach men to love the right things, to place their hearts in godliness and not the things of the world (the large and spacious building). And that is because there are may aspects of being like God, I suspect, that we still have to learn to love. If we haven't yet developed a love for the things of God, now is the time. Now is the time to hold onto the iron rod so that we can "love the light". I think the admonition of Paul spells that out pretty well. That is the process of the gospel but the goal is to develop the same "oneness" in heart that Christ has towards what is good and right. The discipline of the gospel is the method in which we can mold the desires of our heart to match what Christ lived. (I may have mentioned this story already once, sorry) My husband was not a soccer fan growing up, he played football and basketball. I played soccer and am a fan. I have taken him (by force, lol) to games over the years and now he has developed a liking for the game. He has even coached some of our children. He now follows the local college team more than I do. I believe that one of the purposes of the discipline aspect of the gospel is to show us the things that will bring the most joy so that we can "learn to love" that light and in some cases develop the liking for these things as we will be judged by what is in our heart, not just whether we follow some regimen to the letter of the law. Doing it for the right reasons becomes just as important as following the laws. The gospel is the method in which we learn about the right reasons so we can even have a chance of developing a liking for those things, i.e. - the value of the family, service, power of the priesthood etc.

Thanks! Yes, this is exactly why we don't do things like smoke Jimson weed to find God. Or search for God in our dreams or near death experiences, etc. We find God in prayerful, focused thought listening to a still small voice that requires extra concentration and consciousness, not the other direction of less consciousness.

I would imagine it is just like any type of union, if it is based in love for the individual as opposed to just physical attraction then it has a greater chance of lasting. Physical attraction may bring people together but what really makes a companionship last is love for the other person. I know that I would love my husband even if he was hurt to the point of destroying any physically attracting aspect of himself. If he were to have MS and not be able to function in that capacity or if he were burned all over his body etc., I believe my love for him supersedes the physical attraction. The physical attraction is not the "glue" of our marriage, it is more like the icing on the cake. (*blushing*) Our marriage is not hanging by the thread of physical attraction. Physical attraction, just like anything else created by the dust of this world will also turn back to dust, at least for the most part. We shouldn't put the desires of our heart into anything that is so short lived or carnal in nature, God wants us to gather treasures in things that are eternal in nature. When people put the desires of their heart on things that are carnal, they will find disappointment and frustration because those things don't last.

Thanks for engaging with me, I always enjoy your comments. I agree, maybe we are talking past each other because it is mostly semantics that we are disagreeing with. Where the spirit ends and the body begins can be very difficult to define. I think the reason I responded to your post is the first statement of "Certainty (or, in LDS terminology, testimony) is a result of the subconscious mental processes underlying our rational, conscious thought. " In that statement you left out spirit. How does our spiritual self and spiritual knowledge fit into this. I didn't see that you left any room for the spirit in your description of where the testimony comes from. Maybe you assumed the idea that the subconscious is where the spirit influences or at least reflects the spiritual influence is common knowledge but I don't think that is true. Then I suggested that the mind in both the subconscious and conscious parts can be described as a separate entity from spiritual processes (not that they don't interact - that wasn't what I was trying to say) but that they are separately generating thought patterns, spirit and body (body including subconscious paths and conscious). I think the better division that needs to come together in terms of testimony or knowledge is between the spirit and body, not between the subconscious (body) and conscious (body). If the subconscious part of the brain, for example, says I need food; "I'm hungry" and the conscious part of the brain says "You can get more money by stealing it than earning it to get food" then they are in agreement. The subconscious and consciousness are in agreement, but that still can be different from what the spirit says. The spirit recognizes the moral implications of stealing and may prompt the logical parts of the brain to pull back and say "I am hungry and want to eat but it is not worth stealing to get the food". Exactly how the spirit communicates that, whether if it is through the subconscious or the consciousness or both is beside the point I am making. The point I am making is that the spirit and the subconscious are not the same thing. So, where does the spirit fit into that first statement of yours?

I think, I agree with you 100%. Thanks.