Is there a GOD??

[GrayMars]

Sorry that your relationship has put you in doubt about your religious convictions. Because I'm not satisfied with any of my previous conclusions about the existence of God, and therefore not making assumptions, I really can't share a "why I believe" with you.

I suspect that, more than anything, your husband's stance is rooted in the fact that there is no scientific reason to suppose God exists. This I believe is true, but I stop short of coming to a conclusion about God's existence based on this because I don't think it mandates one. Not everyone is coming to agree that science forces us into the non-believing category. If you look around, you'll find a variety of points of view on the issue.

It's OK to be a believer and have doubts, in my opinion. I wouldn't call myself a believer at the moment, but certainly I love to investigate many viewpoints and make a path for myself. I hope I've contributed a useful post here even though it didn't meet all your demands.

GrayMars

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not believe that there is anything that is good, true, right, of good report or praiseworthy that we can learn in this life that can be obtained by any other means other than G-d. I am inclined to think that even in the next life all good things will come from G-d.

I just believe that all truth, knowledge and even faith is according to laws and principles by which G-d governs all things - even himself. To me supernatural means - not according to or contrary to the laws by which things are governed.

You have brought up Lazarus- but I cannot account for the parameters for his death or being restored by Christ. Except that his restoration was only temporary - because later Lazarus died just like everybody else. But I am certain and have faith that not one law or principle by which G-d maintains and orders this mortal existence was violated to any degree when Jesus restored Lazarus. I believe it was a miracle but I do not believe it was supernatural or contrary to G-d's laws by which he created nature to operate within.

The Traveler

The use of the word supernatural was yours. I was simply using it with the hope of communicating in the same language as you. I think the word, now that we have used it a few times, is a stumbling block. I have never disagreed with the notion that God works within a certain set of laws and principles.

"Nature" cannot reach God, in the same way the Kindergarten class can be in an Elementary School without the Kindergartners capable of understanding all that is taught within the Elementary school. Man or "nature" does not have access to all of God's mysteries while in this state. Can the Kindergartner eventually know everything that is taught in an Elementary school? Sure after they have passed grades, line upon line, when they are no longer a Kindergartner. Likewise, to know all that God knows requires us to be in a state that is above our current state, to be above "nature". To get to that higher state and therefore capable of understanding things above this realm we call nature we have to receive a gift of grace from our Savior that is not part of this natural world. The natural world does not comprehend such grace and the power of the atonement. In this months Ensign it talks about the power of grace being something that man cannot produce on their own.

I don't care try to define the word "supernatural" if the meaning of what I thought was being discussed is lost. All I was saying is that man cannot reach God on his own and under his own power, natural process. There is required a higher force (that doesn't have to be something that goes against the laws and principles of the universe) that is not accessible to the natural man and which is only made available in limited amounts under the power of the priesthood, the power of grace, the power of the atonement and the keys given to a particular dispensation. Those powers and keys could never be generated or originate from mortal man or from the natural world around us. Whether you want to call that "supernatural" or not, I don't care ... I am not attached to the word you brought up, I am just talking about the idea behind it. Which, to me, has nothing to do with forces beyond certain laws and principles.

[Traveler]

The use of the word supernatural was yours. I was simply using it with the hope of communicating in the same language as you. I think the word, now that we have used it a few times, is a stumbling block. I have never disagreed with the notion that God works within a certain set of laws and principles.

Then the question I ask is - do the same set of laws and principles that G-d works with - apply to us as well? or do they "naturally" change? or are they "naturally" different for us?

"Nature" cannot reach God, in the same way the Kindergarten class can be in an Elementary School without the Kindergartners capable of understanding all that is taught within the Elementary school. Man or "nature" does not have access to all of God's mysteries while in this state. Can the Kindergartner eventually know everything that is taught in an Elementary school? Sure after they have passed grades, line upon line, when they are no longer a Kindergartner. Likewise, to know all that God knows requires us to be in a state that is above our current state, to be above "nature". To get to that higher state and therefore capable of understanding things above this realm we call nature we have to receive a gift of grace from our Savior that is not part of this natural world. The natural world does not comprehend such grace and the power of the atonement. In this months Ensign it talks about the power of grace being something that man cannot produce on their own.

I think you are making a great observation with the kindergarten analogy - Is mathematics different because a kid is in Kindergarten as opposed to an mathematical expert that has completed a PHD in mathematics in college? No mathematics is not different - just the child's perception and ability to use mathematics is different from the expert. The more the child learns the more they realize that mathematical is not supernatural or magic - Just understanding and applying correct principles. That is really the only difference between the kindergarten child and the adult expert with a PHD in mathematics.

I don't care try to define the word "supernatural" if the meaning of what I thought was being discussed is lost. All I was saying is that man cannot reach God on his own and under his own power, natural process. There is required a higher force (that doesn't have to be something that goes against the laws and principles of the universe) that is not accessible to the natural man and which is only made available in limited amounts under the power of the priesthood, the power of grace, the power of the atonement and the keys given to a particular dispensation. Those powers and keys could never be generated or originate from mortal man or from the natural world around us. Whether you want to call that "supernatural" or not, I don't care ... I am not attached to the word you brought up, I am just talking about the idea behind it. Which, to me, has nothing to do with forces beyond certain laws and principles.

If we are having a discussion with someone that does not believe that G-d can be proven by the results of universal evolution - what option is there? Well - I have suggested that we grant them that possibility and logically see where that gets them. Hmmmm - they cannot logically dismiss G-d by that logic because if evolution can take place without a G-d it will result in evolution bringing about a G-d.

Now you and I know that evolution cannot exist without G-d - in fact, we realize that the universe cannot exist without G-d. But for those that cannot understand that simple reality - what then? I am suggestion that we show them that through applying their logic to the possibilities of evolution that they purport - they will end up with the same conclusion that you and I started with - that the existence of G-d is still the most probable conclusion.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Then the question I ask is - do the same set of laws and principles that G-d works with - apply to us as well? or do they "naturally" change? or are they "naturally" different for us?

I think you are making a great observation with the kindergarten analogy - Is mathematics different because a kid is in Kindergarten as opposed to an mathematical expert that has completed a PHD in mathematics in college? No mathematics is not different - just the child's perception and ability to use mathematics is different from the expert. The more the child learns the more they realize that mathematical is not supernatural or magic - Just understanding and applying correct principles. That is really the only difference between the kindergarten child and the adult expert with a PHD in mathematics.

If we are having a discussion with someone that does not believe that G-d can be proven by the results of universal evolution - what option is there? Well - I have suggested that we grant them that possibility and logically see where that gets them. Hmmmm - they cannot logically dismiss G-d by that logic because if evolution can take place without a G-d it will result in evolution bringing about a G-d.

Now you and I know that evolution cannot exist without G-d - in fact, we realize that the universe cannot exist without G-d. But for those that cannot understand that simple reality - what then? I am suggestion that we show them that through applying their logic to the possibilities of evolution that they purport - they will end up with the same conclusion that you and I started with - that the existence of G-d is still the most probable conclusion.

The Traveler

Thanks for your response, I enjoy talking with you.

The problem I have, I guess, is that we don't believe the premise of that logic.

Maybe another metaphor would be thinking of this life like a summer camp. This world and this state is not our primary place of existence. We are first children of God and heavenly beings that have taken on a fallen, temporary state knowing that this is not our primary condition. Our progression towards Godhood has taken place over thousands, if not longer, of years in His presence. It has culminated in this opportunity to take on the responsibilities of this life, as if we have gone off to summer camp for a short time, knowing we are going back home some day. There are lessons to learn in summer camp that we couldn't learn otherwise but the summer camp does not account for the greater portion of our learning, just a short temporary existence. In fact, for some, it is so short that they may only spend a few hours in this life and then go right back to the heavenly realm. This life is a drop in the bucket, in terms of our "evolution" towards Godhood and therefore I think it is an illogical to consider it possible to reach Godhood from our current existence. This life is a necessary step but not the whole, keep in mind the necessary step the child takes who only lives a couple hours here and try to explain how that individual could possibly reach Godhood from that alone. That is not a logical conclusion.

If that child that lives here only a couple hours still has a shot at becoming like God then we have to conclude that there is some force or power above and beyond what we find in nature that would allow that individual to do that. There is something above "nature" and not found here, in fact, that would account for the majority of that individual's development towards Godhead. I think that applies to all of us, who we really are is hardly represented by our current existence. Until the veil is lifted, those things are above nature and remain mysteries of God but that does not make it untruthful or incomprehensible at some point. The point of understanding though is not while we are here, not while we are a part of "nature", of the flesh.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Seminarysnoozer

[Anddenex]

So yeah, when my spiritual leaders run off into the realms of science, I'm going to take what they say with a grain of salt. How do I tell the difference between what is inspired and what is their personal opinion or interpretation? I study it out for myself. Just like they tell us to do.

MoE, I think this quote from President Ezra Taft Benson is relative to our conversation pertaining to our prophets and what they are able to reveal and how accurate they are able to be on any subject.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

He further shares,

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

“Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Anddenex is stoking the fire :)

[Melissa82]

I want to start off by saying I am agnostic and do not claim I know anything.

Personally, I feel that being atheist is ignorant. Although I cannot deny evolution completely, it depends on the pre-existence of something else. If nothing exists, mathematically, zero multiplied by anything is still zero, thus, I believe there must have been something beyond our understanding that initiated the universe.

Additionally, if we evolve out of necessity or purpose, I often wonder where our empathy came from. Personally, I cry at the drop of a hat over things that in no way affect me in a technical sense. My step-daughter recently had a cyst surgically removed and I spent some time at a children's hospital. Every time I heard them announce they were in a "code white", I had to fight back tears thinking that someone's child was in an emergency situation. It wasn't my child, and I had no idea what was happening, but it greatly affected me. I'm not sure I would ever consider empathy a survival trait, so why do we have it?

I have had things happen in my life that I cannot explain. One of the most influential happened about 10 years ago (even though I didn't reflect upon it until years later). I was stopped at a red light in a downtown area where the buildings are very close to the street and you can't see much beyond your current location. As I was sitting there, I thought "Wow, this intersection is pretty dangerous." When the light turned green, I paused. About 2-3 seconds later, a car that I didn't see coming ran their red light. Had I hit the gas like normal, I'm pretty sure I would have been T-boned on the driver's side; I don't think that would have ended well. Is that proof that God exists? Not necessarily, but I can't explain why those thoughts popped into my mind when I needed them most, even though I was on my way home from school and had driven down that same street many times before.

Another very influential, unexplainable group of events relates to my grandmother. She passed away in 1998, however, there is something that happens about every year or so that makes me feel she is still with me. This is extremely important to me because if it is infact my grandmother, that would prove that something does indeed happen to us when we die; as an agnostic individual, this is a huge deal. Most of these events have been dreams, but what is really interesting is that every single dream is a progression of the one before. What started out as me answering the phone and hearing my grandma say "I'm okay" turned into me seeing more and more of her and talking to her. I can go into more detail with these dreams if anyone is interested, but I truly feel as though my grandmother somehow does little things to let me know she's there. I don't know how this fits into LDS beliefs, but it's a big deal to me so I shared it.

In my mind, I'm not proving God's existence, but I think people can find inspiration in what I've said. I've been on a journey of faith for a while and although I'm not there yet, justifying why God could exist has brought me closer.

[SF_Giants66]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

To believe that we are all here by chance, and that we evolved upward from the primordial soup without the aid of a divine creator takes more faith than it takes for me see the wonders of His creations and see His hands throughout the world.

I've also had personal experiences that have helped me to know of God's love for me and concern for me in my life. I know that He is equally concerned about and aware of you in your life.

Some believe that the creator is nature itself and that if there is a god it is not a personal god or a god that intervenes with our actions.

[SF_Giants66]

I want to start off by saying I am agnostic and do not claim I know anything.

Personally, I feel that being atheist is ignorant. .

If you are an agnostic you lack a belief in god. Being an Atheist means that you lack a belief in gods. If you are agnostic, that means you don't believe in god basically but you just don't believe that it can be proven one way or another.

[SF_Giants66]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

Are you saying that you want people to help you and reassure you that there is a god, or you want people to tell you things that can convince your husband?

If he is now coming to the terms that he doesn't believe in god he has probably thought hard and long about it. Why is being in a different place philosophically than your husband so terrible?

If you want to help, if you haven't already, listen first without debating or interrupting as to why he doesn't believe in god so you can be sure you understand his perspective. If you want to change his mind, you have to know where he is coming from first.

[Melissa82]

An atheist says "There is no God." I say "I don't know."

Seriously? I came here to share experiences with people and hopefully help myself by helping others. Agnostic is the closest thing I have to defining what I believe. I'm trying to share and do something nice and you're going to sit there, completely ignore everything meaningful that I tried to say, and pick apart my terminology? GET A LIFE!

[SF_Giants66]

An atheist says "There is no God." I say "I don't know."

Seriously? I came here to share experiences with people and hopefully help myself by helping others. Agnostic is the closest thing I have to defining what I believe. I'm trying to share and do something nice and you're going to sit there, completely ignore everything meaningful that I tried to say, and pick apart my terminology? GET A LIFE!

I think someone is getting a little temper here.

[Anddenex]

I don't know how this fits into LDS beliefs, but it's a big deal to me so I shared it.

The experiences you share are experiences many LDS members would say are evidences for there being a God.

All attributes, good attributes, are a by product of the spirit which is within our bodies. We accept that these attributes are gifts of God, the most important gift being charity (the pure love of Christ).

Dreams and visions are a huge part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The restoration is a by product of the first vision. I am currently married to my wife of 13 years due to a dream I received 3 years before I met her.

Dreams is one avenue by which our Father in Heaven communicates with his children. As with the story of Joseph in Egypt. We see evidence to this also with Peter who was informed that the gospel should go to the gentiles.

In essence, God reveals himself to those who diligently seek him.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The experiences you share are experiences many LDS members would say are evidences for there being a God.

All attributes, good attributes, are a by product of the spirit which is within our bodies. We accept that these attributes are gifts of God, the most important gift being charity (the pure love of Christ).

Dreams and visions are a huge part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The restoration is a by product of the first vision. I am currently married to my wife of 13 years due to a dream I received 3 years before I met her.

Dreams is one avenue by which our Father in Heaven communicates with his children. As with the story of Joseph in Egypt. We see evidence to this also with Peter who was informed that the gospel should go to the gentiles.

In essence, God reveals himself to those who diligently seek him.

But "dreams" of those kind shouldn't be confused with what happens in REM sleep. Those "dreams" are visions that occur at night not the thing that is remembered after a REM period in which the brain may remember the last 3 to 5 minutes of the random firings of the brain put together with the imaginary 'fill-in' circuitry formulating a story.

[Traveler]

But "dreams" of those kind shouldn't be confused with what happens in REM sleep. Those "dreams" are visions that occur at night not the thing that is remembered after a REM period in which the brain may remember the last 3 to 5 minutes of the random firings of the brain put together with the imaginary 'fill-in' circuitry formulating a story.

Are you stating as indisputable and unalterable fact that there is no possible revelation from G-d that can occur during REM brain activity even considering any possibility of a miracle?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

But "dreams" of those kind shouldn't be confused with what happens in REM sleep. Those "dreams" are visions that occur at night not the thing that is remembered after a REM period in which the brain may remember the last 3 to 5 minutes of the random firings of the brain put together with the imaginary 'fill-in' circuitry formulating a story.

I don't believe I am understanding you interpretation regarding "dreams given by God" verses dreams that happen during "REM sleep".

I am confused by the "visions that occur at night" also.

I would assume God would be able to work through any aspect of dreaming, particularly REM sleep.

[Praetorian_Brow]

A lot of people use "revelation" to justify what they want or to entice someone, usually a spouse, to agree with them. Its extremely hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't believe I am understanding you interpretation regarding "dreams given by God" verses dreams that happen during "REM sleep".

I am confused by the "visions that occur at night" also.

I would assume God would be able to work through any aspect of dreaming, particularly REM sleep.

Then that is a vision. It is just an unfortunate issue with our primitive language that the scriptures use the word "dream" and now that our medical science and understanding of sleep and sleep-wakeful circuitry in the brain has been better understood, we interchange the word "dream" with REM (rapid-eye-movement, which is commonly known as dreaming sleep).

The act of dreaming is a passive process in which the corrupted and carnal brain can produce thoughts images and a story line. The brain tries to make sense of those things and puts it into a "dream". If one wakes up out of dreaming sleep then there is a chance to remember it as it is stored in short term memory circuits and then we call that a dream but actually the person is awake at the moment they are remembering it. So, the remembering of the dream is actually a wakeful process, it is not something that happens while asleep. If God is delivering a specific message and/or story line then it would have to be given through a process that is not a random, made up by the brain process such as REM sleep. It would have to be given during wakefulness or it could be during sleep and the message is given directly to the spirit but then it is not given through REM.

In other words, if brain waves were recorded during a vision from God that occurred at night, I really doubt what would be recorded is the random pattern seen in REM sleep. It more likely would be no recorded physical pattern change as the spirit is talking to the spirit and not through the body. It might be that it is easier to directly communicate with the spirit when the body is preoccupied with something else such as sleep. We already know this is true when we try to communicate with God by prayer when we try to do it in a setting that is quiet and free from distraction.

The reason to be so specific is that we don't want to lead people astray in their perception that somehow REM sleep is a medium in which God could be reached. For similar reasons we don't want people to smoke weed to reach God. Pondering and feeling the spirit require wakefulness, not alteration of consciousness.

[Anddenex]

So, the remembering of the dream is actually a wakeful process, it is not something that happens while asleep. If God is delivering a specific message and/or story line then it would have to be given through a process that is not a random, made up by the brain process such as REM sleep. It would have to be given during wakefulness or it could be during sleep and the message is given directly to the spirit but then it is not given through REM.

In other words, if brain waves were recorded during a vision from God that occurred at night, I really doubt what would be recorded is the random pattern seen in REM sleep. It more likely would be no recorded physical pattern change as the spirit is talking to the spirit and not through the body. It might be that it is easier to directly communicate with the spirit when the body is preoccupied with something else such as sleep. We already know this is true when we try to communicate with God by prayer when we try to do it in a setting that is quiet and free from distraction.

The reason to be so specific is that we don't want to lead people astray in their perception that somehow REM sleep is a medium in which God could be reached. For similar reasons we don't want people to smoke weed to reach God. Pondering and feeling the spirit require wakefulness, not alteration of consciousness.

I believe I will begin with the last paragraph here. I agree, people should only use the mediums God has given us in order to reach him, however I wouldn't, myself, put a limit on God regarding what he uses to communicate to us.

When, I am dreaming, I am asleep. People need to wake me up, or I am awoken from a dream. The vision, is through the avenue of dreams, as said in scripture "I have dreamed a dream" (in other words I was sleeping), or as they are also referred "night visions."

We are incapable of receiving "night visions" without first dreaming or being asleep. In light of this paragraph I read online:

While in REM sleep, most of the muscles become paralyzed and the activity of the brain's neurons becomes quite intense, similar to the activity during wakefulness. This is why REM sleep is sometimes known as paradoxical sleep. It's during this stage of sleep that most people are able to have especially vivid dreams.

If REM sleeps is when people experience some of their most vivid dreams, then it appears to me Lehi would have been within one of the stages of REM to experience the "Tree of Life" dream.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe I will begin with the last paragraph here. I agree, people should only use the mediums God has given us in order to reach him, however I wouldn't, myself, put a limit on God regarding what he uses to communicate to us.

When, I am dreaming, I am asleep. People need to wake me up, or I am awoken from a dream. The vision, is through the avenue of dreams, as said in scripture "I have dreamed a dream" (in other words I was sleeping), or as they are also referred "night visions."

We are incapable of receiving "night visions" without first dreaming or being asleep. In light of this paragraph I read online:

If REM sleeps is when people experience some of their most vivid dreams, then it appears to me Lehi would have been within one of the stages of REM to experience the "Tree of Life" dream.

The quote you gave is only to distinguish the difference between what is called REM sleep verses non-REM sleep in terms of the intensity of what is remembered. We can have memories and thoughts that linger out of any stage of sleep but a particularly "vivid" dream or in other words a story like presentation is what happens during REM sleep. This is as opposed to a photo-like perception that could occur out of any other stage. That was the point of the paragraph you gave. I was assuming that was already understood as to our discussion ... I didn't say anything different than that, we "dream" in REM sleep, is the same thing. All dreams are "vivid" otherwise it likely isn't a dream, it may be just a thought.

I disagree with your notion that one has to be in REM sleep to have a heavenly vision that occurs at night. REM is a function of the body, not of the spirit and we don't have to extrapolate that REM somehow is a divine function of the body just because there are scriptures like the one you gave that says "I have dreamed a dream". "I have dreamed a dream" could very well be "I have envisioned a vision." It has nothing to do with the physiology of sleep, a carnal function. Likewise, we don't use mantras to put us in a state of spiritual transformation, we don't use chemicals to put our body into some out-of-body state to be spiritually transformed and we don't try to control dreams to speak to God, etc.

I agree God could use any form of communication He wanted but the moment He does then it is not a carnal process, it is a vision or a visitation. It can't be called both at the same time, it is one or the other. REM sleep by definition is a random, brain created process. So, either it is a random thing or a message, not both in any given event. The dreamer who "I dreamed a dream" could very well have been asleep but then sleep was stopped and the vision took place.

[Anddenex]

The quote you gave is only to distinguish the difference between what is called REM sleep verses non-REM sleep in terms of the intensity of what is remembered. We can have memories and thoughts that linger out of any stage of sleep but a particularly "vivid" dream or in other words a story like presentation is what happens during REM sleep. This is as opposed to a photo-like perception that could occur out of any other stage. That was the point of the paragraph you gave. I was assuming that was already understood as to our discussion ... I didn't say anything different than that, we "dream" in REM sleep, is the same thing. All dreams are "vivid" otherwise it likely isn't a dream, it may be just a thought.

I don't believe I am understanding then your definition behind REM sleep. It appeared from your statements, that you were separating REM from dreams, and that dreams didn't happen during REM.

I disagree with your notion that one has to be in REM sleep to have a heavenly vision that occurs at night. REM is a function of the body, not of the spirit and we don't have to extrapolate that REM somehow is a divine function of the body just because there are scriptures like the one you gave that says "I have dreamed a dream". "I have dreamed a dream" could very well be "I have envisioned a vision." It has nothing to do with the physiology of sleep, a carnal function. Likewise, we don't use mantras to put us in a state of spiritual transformation, we don't use chemicals to put our body into some out-of-body state to be spiritually transformed and we don't try to control dreams to speak to God, etc.

I never made a notion that a person is unable to have a "night vision" without being asleep. Visions can happen when a person is asleep, and a person is awake in the night.

I agree, the terminology of "I have dreamed a dream" can also mean "I have envisioned a vision" or "I have envisioned a dream." This correlates, or gives evidence, to Martin Luther King Jr. who once said, "I have a dream...," or "I have a vision..."

Thus, context of the statement is very important. Lehi's words, "in my dream", is a statement of something that happened while he was asleep. This also coincides with dreams I have received from the Lord, or "night visions." Context is most important.

So, either it is a random thing or a message, not both in any given event. The dreamer who "I dreamed a dream" could very well have been asleep but then sleep was stopped and the vision took place.

This is where we disagree. God is using the avenue of sleep, dreams, to provide learning in the night. We are still asleep, and we are still dreaming, while the vision (message) is delivered.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't believe I am understanding then your definition behind REM sleep. It appeared from your statements, that you were separating REM from dreams, and that dreams didn't happen during REM.

I never made a notion that a person is unable to have a "night vision" without being asleep. Visions can happen when a person is asleep, and a person is awake in the night.

I agree, the terminology of "I have dreamed a dream" can also mean "I have envisioned a vision" or "I have envisioned a dream." This correlates, or gives evidence, to Martin Luther King Jr. who once said, "I have a dream...," or "I have a vision..."

Thus, context of the statement is very important. Lehi's words, "in my dream", is a statement of something that happened while he was asleep. This also coincides with dreams I have received from the Lord, or "night visions." Context is most important.

This is where we disagree. God is using the avenue of sleep, dreams, to provide learning in the night. We are still asleep, and we are still dreaming, while the vision (message) is delivered.

Sleep, by definition, is an unconscious state. Just keep that in mind. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Matthew 1: " 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Clearly, David was not asleep when he had this dream-like experience.

You said; "Thus, context of the statement is very important. Lehi's words, "in my dream", is a statement of something that happened while he was asleep. "

Are you then assuming David was asleep in the above scripture?

How else could a person describe such an experience and especially when they would have no understanding of neuroanatomy and sleep circuitry the way we do now. Describing it as a dream is completely acceptable for their limited understanding of neuroanatomy. Now though, we realize that dreaming is an unconscious event and therefore not anything close to what we are taught is the method of being in touch with the spirit.

Like Joseph Smith, we are to ponder it in our minds over and over again and then ask in prayer. Attempting to find an answer or a source of inspiration is not done by making one self unconscious. We don't smoke weed to find God, we don't try to induce a near death experience to find God, we don't find God by chanting ourselves into a state of limited consciousness and we don't expect to find God in the unconscious state of sleep. We are told the complete opposite method, to study, to ponder, to search in our mind which is with consciousness and awareness that we approach our understanding.

I think it would be perfectly fine to put in place of "dream", "dream-like state" to better understand the process so we avoid any misconception about what happened. "I had a dream-like vision while in a dream-like state."

The topical guide in the scriptures under "Dream" says, "See also Vision".

I think you are right about the context issue but the context being the person who is perceiving the vision and their language they would use to describe it. For example, King Nebuchadnezzar describes it as a dream and gets mad at his wise men when they suggest only God could know because he, at that time, didn't comprehend that it was a vision from God. But when Daniel receives the same message it is called a night vision, as it should be called because he knows it was from God not from his brain; Daniel 2; " 19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his"

[Anddenex]

Are you then assuming David was asleep in the above scripture?

As I previously said, context is important, and let us look at the context of this verse, as written, "But while he thought on these things..."

While in thought, would mean that he was actively awake thinking upon something. He was not asleep, so I am not assuming anything here...the scripture is clear -- he was awake.

This is similar to Nephi's experience when Nephi said, "as I sat pondering in mine heart I was bcaught away in the Spirit of the Lord..."

"While he thought" and "as I sat pondering in my heart" both representing a person is awake, not sleeping. They both received a vision.

How else could a person describe such an experience and especially when they would have no understanding of neuroanatomy and sleep circuitry the way we do now. Describing it as a dream is completely acceptable for their limited understanding of neuroanatomy. Now though, we realize that dreaming is an unconscious event and therefore not anything close to what we are taught is the method of being in touch with the spirit.

Dreaming is a method our Lord uses to teach us, whether we are unconscious or not, if we are asleep we are asleep.

I wasn't awake when I received dreams "night visions" from the Lord. Thus, I believe you are thinking to deeply with regard to "unconscious" methods. Dreams are a method by which God instructs us, as he instructed the pharaoh of Egypt.

As we read in scripture, "And we dreamed a dream in one night, I and he; we dreamed each man according to the interpretation of his dream."

This was not something that the chief baker and butler and pharaoh were pondering about, or meditating upon. They received these in the same manner as we dream in our sleep.

As provided on our lds.org website, "One way that God reveals His will to men and women on earth. Not all dreams are revelations, however. Inspired dreams are the fruit of faith."

Or as with, "Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed adreams, wherewith his spirit was btroubled, and his sleep brake from him."

Notice, "sleep brake from him." He was asleep, and while asleep (unconscious - according to the standard you share), his spirit was troubled and then sleep brakes from him.

Like Joseph Smith, we are to ponder it in our minds over and over again and then ask in prayer. Attempting to find an answer or a source of inspiration is not done by making one self unconscious.

I dont' ever remember saying making oneself unconscious to receive inspiration is appropriate. However, as we see within scripture the Lord uses our dreams -- when we are asleep -- to communicate, to warn, and to teach his children.

We don't smoke weed to find God, we don't try to induce a near death experience to find God, we don't find God by chanting ourselves into a state of limited consciousness and we don't expect to find God in the unconscious state of sleep. We are told the complete opposite method, to study, to ponder, to search in our mind which is with consciousness and awareness that we approach our understanding.

I don't believe this is a very good example with regard to dreams. Smoking weed, and the Lord using a method obviously proven through scripture isn't the same.

I agree, we are to search, ponder, and pray for inspiration.

I think it would be perfectly fine to put in place of "dream", "dream-like state" to better understand the process so we avoid any misconception about what happened. "I had a dream-like vision while in a dream-like state."

The key phrase is "I think", is what should be pointed out. I agree, this is what you think, and I don't see anything wrong with using I dreamed a dream, which actually was a vision from the Lord.

I think you are right about the context issue but the context being the person who is perceiving the vision and their language they would use to describe it. For example, King Nebuchadnezzar describes it as a dream and gets mad at his wise men when they suggest only God could know because he, at that time, didn't comprehend that it was a vision from God. But when Daniel receives the same message it is called a night vision, as it should be called because he knows it was from God not from his brain; Daniel 2; " 19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his"

Focus on the part as previously shared where it mentions in scripture how his sleep broke from him. Our sleep doesn't brake if we were never asleep as with Nephi who "sat pondering" and Joseph who "thought."

I do agree, dreams -- while asleep -- are visions. They happen while we are dreaming, while we are sleeping.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

In addition this is an experience give by President Henry B. Eyring:

Church history and the experiences of our ancestors illustrate this reality. My great-grandfather Henry Eyring prayed fervently to know what he should do when he heard the restored gospel taught in 1855. The answer came in a dream.

He dreamed that he was seated at a table with Elder Erastus Snow of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and with an elder named William Brown. Elder Snow taught the principles of the gospel for what seemed to be an hour. Then Elder Snow said, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to be baptized and this man [Elder Brown] … shall baptize you.”1 My family is grateful that Henry Eyring had the faith and humility to be baptized at 7:30 in the morning in a pool of rainwater in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, by Elder Brown.

The answer to his prayer did not come in an audible voice from the Lord. It came in a vision and dream in the night, as it did with Lehi (see 1 Nephi 8:2).

The question, was he pondering and awake, or was his sleeping? It appears to me that President Eyrings grandfather was asleep when this dream was given.

The account of Pharaoh as given in scripture:

"And the ill favoured and leanfleshed kine did eat up the seven well favoured and fat kine. So Pharaoh awoke.

5 And he slept and dreamed the second time:"

In this experience also, we receive evidence the Pharaoh was asleep, and he awoke, and then he slept and dreamed again a second time. In both experiences, the Pharaoh received a dream while he was asleep -- unconscious.

We find evidence in scripture that there are two types of visions in the night, which can be defined also as night visions that happen when people are pondering the words of scripture and when they are asleep.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Anddenex

[mikbone]

Then that is a vision. It is just an unfortunate issue with our primitive language that the scriptures use the word "dream" and now that our medical science and understanding of sleep and sleep-wakeful circuitry in the brain has been better understood, we interchange the word "dream" with REM (rapid-eye-movement, which is commonly known as dreaming sleep).

The act of dreaming is a passive process in which the corrupted and carnal brain can produce thoughts images and a story line. The brain tries to make sense of those things and puts it into a "dream". If one wakes up out of dreaming sleep then there is a chance to remember it as it is stored in short term memory circuits and then we call that a dream but actually the person is awake at the moment they are remembering it. So, the remembering of the dream is actually a wakeful process, it is not something that happens while asleep. If God is delivering a specific message and/or story line then it would have to be given through a process that is not a random, made up by the brain process such as REM sleep. It would have to be given during wakefulness or it could be during sleep and the message is given directly to the spirit but then it is not given through REM.

In other words, if brain waves were recorded during a vision from God that occurred at night, I really doubt what would be recorded is the random pattern seen in REM sleep. It more likely would be no recorded physical pattern change as the spirit is talking to the spirit and not through the body. It might be that it is easier to directly communicate with the spirit when the body is preoccupied with something else such as sleep. We already know this is true when we try to communicate with God by prayer when we try to do it in a setting that is quiet and free from distraction.

The reason to be so specific is that we don't want to lead people astray in their perception that somehow REM sleep is a medium in which God could be reached. For similar reasons we don't want people to smoke weed to reach God. Pondering and feeling the spirit require wakefulness, not alteration of consciousness.

First off, modern science has no idea what causes dreams. There are many learned men whom think that they have figured out how our brains work. But in my opinion they are grasping at straws.

If God wants to deliver a message to a man or woman during a waking vision, any of the 5 phases of sleep, within the 4 phases of anesthesia, or even during a near death experience... He can do it.