Seminarysnoozer

I agree with what you say here but I am not sure why you put that sentence, that I put in bold. That seems to be contrary to the rest of the paragraph. Either we are okay with a resonating assurance of truth or we must find some measure of structure. I think it is the idea that we can attain a full understanding of the mysteries of God while in this life or even have the chance to "process it", at least to the point of calling it "structured", that is a distraction as to the purpose of this life and is not the real goal of this life. I think that is a misleading goal for this life that is out there. Understanding in this life can come after faith but was never part of the list of principles needed to merit exaltation. Faith without understanding can still get a person there. The main goal is to be okay with faith alone. If there is a measure of understanding that promotes faith, that is great. But to really understand is not the goal of this life. We all, likely, intellectually understood the plan in great detail in the previous existence in the presence of God and here we are to remember that understanding. We don't have to learn it de novo. Like the sound a modem makes on a telephone line, it doesn't have to sound "structured" or make sense to our physical ear to send a message to our spirit, it can still sound "chaotic or random" and we can be okay with that.

I don't know if I fully understand why but we do tend to believe that corruption (which is the state of our current body, even if we call it a "temple") could not stand the presence of God. This is why He sends messengers, angels, visions to leaders and communicates personally through the Holy Ghost. There are many references that the Holy Ghost communicates directly to the spirit. I am not aware of any references of the Holy Ghost communicating directly to the body and not the spirit. When the body is kept pure and clean then the communications received from the Holy Ghost are more easily recognized. Even then, the body makes that process like a telephone wire with a bunch of static (at least for most of us). Messages from the Holy Ghost require listening very carefully to the still small voice that would not be aided by being half conscious or in a delirium or the distracting processes of the active REM state any more than it would help to listen to the spirit by being in the middle of a rock concert. Jesus Christ didn't ask the apostles to help in the time of His need for spiritual support by falling asleep. He did the opposite, asked them to not fall asleep.

If I read his posts with a southern twang, they kind of make sense. (... I sense lawyer speech too, but I could be wrong.)

Despair and helplessness are tools of Satan. God does not want us to feel those things or anything like it. He has always taught hope and a positive outlook. I doubt God would try to teach us that it is okay to have a lack of hope for any situation. I can't see how that would be a useful lesson.

Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said. I agree with pretty much everything you said there except the testimony given that the Father speaks "to all men, in dreams ...". I am not sure how you would know how God speaks to all men. Dreaming is a function of the body. We have no knowledge that it is a function of the spirit. If anyone wants to say that God communicates through the body without talking to the spirit, that is a doctrine that I am not familiar with. I am not sure why people insist such things. Why do people believe they have been abducted by aliens? Are they lying? Most of the time not, they actually believe it. How can that be? Because the brain makes up memories, it makes up feelings, experiences, images, dreams, etc. that the brain takes as real. It is sometimes hard to distinguish what is real versus what is made up by the imaginative parts of the brain. In other words, not everything a person experiences in this life really happened. This is a fact. Not a theory. This is part of the corruption of the body (the brain to be exact). This is what sets up the test to allow us to have the agency to choose between passions of the body versus passions of the spirit. To discern between the two is the test. If a person does not acknowledge that there are two sets of passions, then, I would guess, the test is already over for that person.

That wasn't my question to you, but okay. One is enough for me. I was asking what you thought God's situation was, not what He commanded man to do.

Better repent about that, lol. I think King Benjamin talks about that, that it has to be done continually and that is a part of what it means to have a "mighty change", to continually turn from evil.

Science knows .07% of all there is to know about it??? What does that have to do with anything? A bit of the subconscious mind is revealed when people have psychosis, when they are drunk and when they are dreaming. Hows that? The subconscious remains outside of consciousness for a reason. Just like I wouldn't want to see every little calculation this computer is making pop up on the screen. It would be detracting, confusing and slow the function down.

This is obviously where we differ in our view. To say this is incorrect goes against the teachings of Joseph F. Smith and Brigham Young and many others. If it weren't so, like you are suggesting, then you would be held responsible for every passing thought. If someone has a passing thought of jealousy, or anger, for example, we know that we are not held responsible for those thoughts, so long as we don't let them linger and take them in. If I see a handsome man walking down the street and I am momentarily feel an attraction to him, did I sin? So long as I don't turn it into a desire of my heart, a lust, no. If the body, which produces the hunger on fast Sunday, the sleepiness for the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, the passing thought of lust, anger, sexual attraction, pride, etc. is inseparable from the spirit as you say, then we would be held accountable for those thoughts and those shortcomings. If the body and the spirit are inseparable then the schizophrenic who commits murder would have to pay the price for their sin in full. The person with Bipolar disease who goes out on a manic episode and has 3 sexual encounters in one night would be responsible for their actions. If the body and the spirit are not autonomous then you suggest all those with Down's syndrome are that way because their spirit is that way, which is absolutely ridiculous. Paul talks about the desires of the flesh, this is one of our basic teachings. President Soares of the seventies says it well here; "To sow in the Spirit means that all our thoughts, words, and actions must elevate us to the level of the divinity of our heavenly parents. However, the scriptures refer to the flesh as the physical or carnal nature of the natural man, which allows people to be influenced by passion, desires, appetites, and drives of the flesh instead of looking for inspiration from the Holy Ghost. If we are not careful, those influences together with the pressure of the evil in the world may conduct us to adopt vulgar and reckless behavior which may become part of our character. In order to avoid those bad influences, we have to follow what the Lord instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith about continuously sowing in the Spirit: “Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great” (D&C 64:33)." Spiritual influences come from the spirit, carnal influences come from the flesh. They are clearly separated and thank goodness not one in the same. I am glad we understand that within the fullness of the gospel. We are not born evil as some religions believe, because I am not my flesh, I am my spirit.

I can't tell by your comment if this is a "can of worms" for you because you think it possible that God has multiple wives or that you don't.

Explain to me then, how do you "experience" anything while unconscious?

Satan has dominion over everything on the Earth (at the moment), including our body which is made of the dust of this Earth even though the Lord maintains ownership and will come back to rule. Right now, though, Christ has not come back yet to rule over all things of the Earth. Luckily he does not have power over our spirit, unless given. Matt 4:8-10 " 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." And Romans 8: " 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the acreature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of ccorruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation agroaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." And John 12 " 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Jesus called Satan the prince of this world. Paul speaks of the corruption of the flesh and carnality in many examples. We also know that the natural man is an enemy to God. If man does nothing, what comes natural, then the body is subject to more control by Satan. It is only through righteous action and constant effort that we break free from that control. ... In a state of unconsciousness, of course, one cannot do that, this is why we stay away from alcohol, for example.

I think you are missing my point. "Spiritual dreams" is a bit of an oxymoron. We do not know, and I highly doubt, that the spirit dreams. The brain dreams, I don't think the spirit dreams. If it is through the spirit that one is obtaining visions, then we call it a vision. If there are images produced by the act of REM sleep, then we call that dreaming. Just like, if I have acid go up into my esophagus I call it heartburn and if the spirit touches my heart I might call it burning in the chest. I am just saying that it is unfortunate that we call visions that occur at night, "dreams". It would be the same problem if we called 'burning in the bosom', "heartburn". If every time I was touched by the spirit I told people that "I got that heartburn feeling" again, that would confuse people about where this is coming from. Likewise, if it is said that a vision received was a "dream" that would confuse people about where this is coming from. It does not come from the act of REM sleep made by the brain, which is random, imaginative strings of thought produced by the imaginative parts of the brain combined with memories and sometimes ongoing sensory stimuli, not input from spiritual sources. ... any more than my heartburn is from a spiritual source. I think it is false to believe that a vision would be delivered to anyone while unconscious.

Yes, there is a need to distinguish. Just last night on the news there was a story about an ipod app to help a person "control" their dreams. The app puts out certain words to try to affect the character of the dreams. People seek spiritual insight in places where it isn't to be found. In a similar way, I make a distinction between when I feel the sensation of heartburn versus a burning in the heart. A "dream" in the scriptures is a vision, not what happens in REM sleep. Satan has been given dominion over the body, all the things of the Earth. It is very important to distinguish what comes from the body versus what comes from the spirit. This is our basic test. I would propose making that distinction is very difficult when a person is unconscious. If you think you can do that in the unconscious state, more power to you.

Your mistake is that you are using the terms "dream" and "dreaming" interchangeably. "Dreaming" can be measured externally, without the persons perception of being in that state, such as polysomnography. A "dream" is different than "dreaming" in that the "dream" is the part that is perceived in consciousness, after sleep. If you read my post just above yours, you will see my explanation of this. The perception of dreaming occurs during wakefulness. It is the gathering of information left in the circuits of the working memory, while a person is awake but that remain from the non-stimulus driven circuits of the brain while in REM (i.e. - imaginative circuits, the same ones that drive hallucinations). At that moment of recognition while awake following sleep, the dream is formed in a person's consciousness as if it had happened while asleep. A proof of this is the fact that REM sleep can be observed in a person (polysomnography) without them waking from sleep and the person does not maintain memory of that REM period. If, however, the person is awoken in REM and stays awake for several minutes then there is a greater chance of forming a memory of the REM period. If there is no wakefulness there is no memory. By definition, to remember a dream requires wakefulness. A "dream" is the part that is remembered, which is different than saying the state of "dreaming" which is the quote that you gave. The state of "dreaming" does not necessarily result in a person perceiving a dream. You failed to separate those two things in your quote. A dream is the wakeful perception of the dreaming state. But a person can be dreaming without hallucinating, by their definition, if the event is not perceived. As soon as it is perceived, though, it has to be done in wakefulness as there is nothing perceived in unconsciousness (sleep).

I think your biggest point of speculation has to do with the concept that authority is tied into who one's parents were. This was an issue for many members of the church when Joseph Smith died. Those that realized that who one's parents were does not give authority directly are the one's who stayed with the church that maintained priesthood authority and followed Brigham Young. Those that speculated over that idea, that authority is tied into who one's parents are went another direction and formed another church.

Why do you have to take "first" as referring to a birth order?

(I know you know this Anne, just trying to clarify this to make sure I am on the right page with my understanding) The thing is though, those rules are only metaphoric in their significance for the eternal application of inheritance. One can't take those rules and apply them directly to what they mean for eternal inheritance. Being the "son of a handmaiden" possibly is the metaphor for not living the gospel covenants 100% and then, of course, that person would not have the same rights to inheritance that a person who lived by their covenants would. The rules are only a preparatory concept to help understand the greater law. Now that we have the fullness of the gospel those rules really have no eternal significance if one were to try to apply them in a literal sense. The message of the metaphor is that we live our lives with 100% dedication to the gospel of the firstborn, with all of our heart, might, mind and soul and that would make us heirs to the inheritance of the "firstborn". Not that it actually has anything to do with birth order or who one's mortal parents are. If a person does not live up to their covenants, then it is as if they are not like the "firstborn". Jesus is the example of this as He lived His covenants perfectly.

Thanks for summarizing. I don't think I am confused, I think the use of the terms is confusing. ... Just like you stated; "Genetics is an issue..." and then the next sentence "Genetics isn't an issue ..." If A + B = 'promises made to Abraham', and A does not equal 'promises made to Abraham', and B = 'promises made to Abraham', then it leads us to believe that the value of A is nothing. In this simplification A = the literal descendants of Abraham, B = making and living by the covenants of the gospel. What, if anything, is passed onto a literal descendant of Abraham if the person does not accept the gospel? What I am asking here is not what is passed on by growing up in a family that has the gospel or raised with that knowledge. I am asking what is passed on in the genetic material of being a "literal" descendant of Abraham. If we don't think there is anything passed on in the genetic material then why use the word "literal". The word "literal" has no meaning if we do not believe there is something passed on genetically. So, what is the thing that is passed in the genes? That is the thing that is not given in the gospel. The only thing people will say is that the promise is passed on. But, in reality the "promise" is not passed in the genes, it is passed in the covenant and by living by the covenant. So, the word "literal" becomes deceptive in our modern understanding of the words "literal descendant". If an identical twin literal descendant of Abraham was adopted at birth by a family who did not live under the covenant, what thing did that person carry with them to the new family in terms of the promise that he shares with his twin that does grow up under the covenant? And, if a "literal" descendant of Abraham is born into a family that has not had the gospel or the covenants for 50 generations, what does that individual have by way of being a literal descendant that a person who is not a literal descendant also born into a family who does not have the gospel? I am not seeing what that thing is.

Thanks for your response. I am only so passionate about it because I (if you have read any of my other posts in other threads could see) am still trying to understand the apparent significance of mortal inheritance given in the scriptures. Why does the paternal or maternal origin of the mortal body make any difference at all for this life or the next? We can't say that it doesn't make a difference because we believe in a Savior that is described as the Only Begotten. This is at the heart of our religion. More so in the old testament, a person's mortal parentage was significant. But why? I would say that that is not very well described. I think now we are okay with saying it does not make a difference, we can all be adopted into a tribe of Israel. Why where one's mortal, throw away, genes came from in the first place makes any difference at all is still something I ponder. I lean on the side of it all being metaphoric and not literal, that's the only way I can make sense of it.

Even if we were to take the idea of our Heavenly Father having more than one wife (which is nowhere in our doctrine and a made up idea of men) how would that explain anything about Lucifer's situation? I think you are trying to imply some genetic-like concept that certain things would be passed from one mother and not the other or some kind of inheritance is available to one and not the other. This idea is not part of LDS doctrine, as far as I know. I would think that the right to authority is only based in being valiant and faithful. I would have a hard time accepting a spiritual "birthright" based in who one's parents are. Here is where that concept is impossible (in my understanding); all who make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are recipients of ALL the Father has. And they are the ones who will have the privilege to have eternal increase. If any spirit has a Heavenly Mother with less of something than another Heavenly Mother than you would be expressing a disbelief in the idea that all those that receive the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom inherit ALL that the Father has. You would have to support some idea that there are those that get a partial inheritance but still have the right to eternal increase. In other words, a spirit child from any pair of Heavenly Parents (if that is possible) would have the same rights, privileges and prospects as any other child as the potential Parents would not differ by definition of them having ALL that the Father has. What trait or privilege or inheritance could be missing if all Heavenly Parents have ALL? There is nothing in our doctrine that suggests the possibility of being a "lesser" parent.

Yes, so genetics are not an issue. This makes it very hard, for someone who was raised LDS, to understand why genetics was ever an issue. I still don't understand that. When we talk about "seed" then we are just talking in the spiritual sense, right? The promises made to Abraham, as far as his seed, was only in this "spiritual Israel" sense, right? ... if not, then we open the door to believing it to be more than just "spiritual".

Let me just reinforce our current understanding of REM dreaming. What you remember of the dream is what is flowing through the working memory circuits of the brain upon awakening. In other words, what one remembers is not the part that occurs when you are asleep. You form memory of the imaginary sensations created by the brain in the last few moments of the REM period that are still part of working memory for a few moments. They would not be retained unless you are awake when retaining them. So, your "experience" of the dream actually occurs when you are awake, always, by definition. When a person is asleep they are not conscious and therefore cannot recall anything that occurred while asleep. This is an impossibility. Like staring at the sun for a moment, you can close your eyes and you will still see the image. The image and made up story line the brain creates while in REM remains momentarily in working memory for a few moments upon awakening and what we perceive happened while asleep is actually only happening while awake for those first few moments. Why should anyone care about this? Well, because we are not a religion that believes in artificially disconnecting from the body to gain spiritual insight such as in taking sedatives, alcohol, or hallucinogens like some other religions have declared is spiritually insightful. (i.e Henbane, Peyote, mushrooms, etc.) Was Lehi awake or asleep when he had his "dream"? .... he wasn't asleep.

Thanks, I am not saying that your experience was a hallucination. I wouldn't have any idea and I would tend to believe you, not knowing. I am simply saying that a dream is a hallucinatory state. Why call it a dream if you think it was a vision?

To remember a dream, you have to wake up. Otherwise, you don't form any memory about the dream. The act of turning on sleep circuits in the brain erases memory of what just happened over the past 2 to 3 minutes. This is a proven fact. If you woke up from it you likely were not in a "dead" sleep, whatever that means. I'm not sure how you would know how deep your sleep was anyways. If you have consciousness about your sleep, meaning if you perceive it one way or another, by definition, it is light. Sleep and wakeful circuits are separate in the brain, this is what makes it possible to sleepwalk, sleep talk etc. One remembers dreams more if they are half awake, which would, by definition, mean the person is sleeping lightly, not "dead" sleep. If we believe in gaining insight from hallucinatory states, why don't we also believe in having spiritual experiences from smoking Jimson weed or taking some other hallucinogen? It seems like that would be equally as effective.