Whisperings of the spirit verses emotions.

[Traveler]

 

Often in scripture, the word “heart” is used in part to describe the workings of the spirit with mankind.  In ancient culture the term heart meant the core of what makes a person the person they are.  In our postmodern era; heart has more pagan connotations – such as love (cupid style).  In essence our heart has come to represent our emotions.

While visiting the Mediterranean area, and observing early Traditional Christian art it became obvious to me that during what we “Mormons” call the Great Apostasy – that there was great confusion between manifestations of the spirit and emotions.  Hollywood movies seem to portray emotions as our “spiritual” nature – so many think if a tear was shed that a person’s spirit was touched.  Often, I encounter (even among fellow saints) people claiming to have spiritual manifestations that are in direct conflict to manifestations I have received.  Perhaps I am kind of an extreme example because I do not trust my emotions and I do not believe spiritual manifestations are similar at all to emotions.

So a question for the forum – how do you personally distinguish your emotions from manifestations of the spirit? Or do you even think they are different?

 

The Traveler

Edited August 22, 2017 by Traveler

[Sunday21]

I think that this is a good questions. I wish that I had an answer!

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Often in scripture, the word “heart” is used in part to describe the workings of the spirit with mankind.  In ancient culture the term heart meant the core of what makes a person the person they are.  In our postmodern era; heart has more pagan connotations – such as love (cupid style).  In essence our heart has come to represent our emotions.

While visiting the Mediterranean area, and observing early Traditional Christian art it became obvious to me that during what we “Mormons” call the Great Apostasy – that there was great confusion between manifestations of the spirit and emotions.  Hollywood movies seem to portray emotions as our “spiritual” nature – so many think if a tear was shed that a person’s spirit was touched.  Often, I encounter (even among fellow saints) people claiming to have spiritual manifestations that are in direct conflict to manifestations I have received.  Perhaps I am kind of an extreme example because I do not trust my emotions and I do not believe spiritual manifestations are similar at all to emotions.

So a question for the forum – how do you personally distinguish your emotions from manifestations of the spirit? Or do you even think they are different?

Heart, might, mind, and strength.

If heart is spiritual, what is might?  It isn't strength.  So, what is it?

In other languages, the word "might" is translated as "soul".

Quote

English: ...see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.

Spanish:...mirad que le servais con todo vuestro corazon, alma, mente, y fuerza.

D&C 4: 2

Notice the word "alma" is in place of "might".  "Alma" is not the BoM prophet in this verse.  It is the Spanish word for "soul".

The French is rendered thusly:

Quote

veillez à le ^bservir de tout votre ^ccœur, de tout votre pouvoir, de tout votre esprit et de toutes vos forces 

This is hard to translate back.

Heart, power/ability, spirit, strength.  It omits mind entirely.  It replaces "mind" with "spirit".  And it replaces "might" with "power/ability"

Portuguese:

Quote

vede que o ^bsirvais de todo o ^ccoração, poder, mente e força, 

Heart, power/ability, mind, strength.  So, might is power/ability.  Mind is still mind.

Part of the reason they don't use soul in French or Portuguese is that the word has the meaning of "life force".

Edited August 22, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

In reading scriptures, I have come to believe that "heart" refers to a person's innermost thoughts, similar to what we would call "mind". The term "bowels" appears to mean the seat of all deep emotion, and corresponds more closely to what we today would call "heart". So:

scripture "heart" --> "mind"
scripture "bowels" --> "heart"

As for the question of separating the whisperings of the Spirit from our own emotion, I do agree that there is an important difference between the two. But I do not believe there is a complete separation. I think the Spirit often works through our emotions, just as it often works through our mental faculties. The Spirit informs us through our mind and our heart. But that's not to say that we should accept any emotion we feel as the Spirit working in us, any more than that we should accept any old random thought that pops into our minds as an enlightening of the Spirit. So there's my non-answer.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

In reading scriptures, I have come to believe that "heart" refers to a person's innermost thoughts, similar to what we would call "mind". The term "bowels" appears to mean the seat of all deep emotion, and corresponds more closely to what we today would call "heart". So:

scripture "heart" --> "mind"
scripture "bowels" --> "heart"

As for the question of separating the whisperings of the Spirit from our own emotion, I do agree that there is an important difference between the two. But I do not believe there is a complete separation. I think the Spirit often works through our emotions, just as it often works through our mental faculties. The Spirit informs us through our mind and our heart. But that's not to say that we should accept any emotion we feel as the Spirit working in us, any more than that we should accept any old random thought that pops into our minds as an enlightening of the Spirit. So there's my non-answer.

I disagree with those equivalencies. I believe heart really does mean emotion on a higher level.  But "bowels" means the more viceral and fundamental emotions.  When "my bowels are filled with mercy" that means that I'm filled with mercy on a very fundamental & basic level.  I truly feel it without considering the logic behind it.

As for the separation, I agree.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

In reading scriptures, I have come to believe that "heart" refers to a person's innermost thoughts, similar to what we would call "mind". The term "bowels" appears to mean the seat of all deep emotion, and corresponds more closely to what we today would call "heart". So:

scripture "heart" --> "mind"
scripture "bowels" --> "heart"

Then what is mind in "heart, might, mind, and strength"?  or "the heart and a willing mind"?

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Spirit informs us through our mind and our heart.

  You're confusing me!

 

[Vort]

Just now, zil said:

Then what is mind in "heart, might, mind, and strength"?  or "the heart and a willing mind"?

This is latter-day scripture, given (I believe) in terms Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would understand.

[Guest]

I feel that, while the Spirit can influence us in emotional ways sometimes, often the influence of the Spirit is even more subtle and wide reaching, to the point our very stream of conscious and the thoughts coming into our minds are influenced by the Spirit.  I think the influence of the Spirit is therefore often both more subtle and fundamental than merely having a "feeling" about something.

I feel like, day-to-day, if you have the Spirit, your very thought processes will be influenced, and your very thoughts and reasoning will be closer to what the Lord wants.

This could help explain why George Albert Smith said, if you lose the spirit, you won't even be able to think or reason properly.

That is not to say sometimes the Spirit can't give you a very clear and distinct emotional feeling to emphasize something. 

However, day-to-day, I think even those people who claim they "never feel the Spirit distinctively" actually have the influence of the Spirit in their lives all the time, influencing the very thoughts that come into their stream of consciousness, how they reason, ideas they get, etc.

I am going to admit - I have never once felt that burning in the bosom, and I don't do the thing where I cry when I am influenced by the Spirit.  That is not how the Spirit communicates with me.  Rather, sometimes I will just know something is right or wrong.  For example, the doctrine of predestination.  Before studying it in depth, I knew the doctrine was wrong.  I don't know how, but I knew it was wrong because I knew.  This is the Spirit!  Other times, my mind has been opened and I have had knowledge that came from nowhere, ideas, thoughts, etc. that have proven to be very useful.  This is the Spirit!  Neither reaction was emotional - it was more about ideas, thoughts, reasoning put into my mind.

Edited August 22, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is latter-day scripture, given (I believe) in terms Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would understand.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.37?lang=eng&clang=eng#p36

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/12.30?lang=eng&clang=eng#p29

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/10.27?lang=eng&clang=eng#p26

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/philip/4.7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/10.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p15

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-chr/28.9?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/2.35?lang=eng&clang=eng#p34

[Guest]

This brings up another point.

I have heard before from various people, "make sure your testimony is not based on logic; if you can reason yourself into the Church, you can reason yourself out."

That advice doesn't work for me.  I guess I am a spiritual Vulcan - the way I feel the Spirit is often wrapped up in logic, reason, and getting ideas from external sources.  That is not to say the Spirit is not a big part of my testimony - the difference is, the Spirit speaks to me in the language of logic and reason and ideas, not so much feelings or raw emotions.

I feel that, for me personally, my emotions can deceive me and I do not trust my emotions.  But it is hard to dismiss a train of thought, external ideas, approaches to things that come from outside of my mind that are put there by the Spirit, and this is what has led me to gain a very strong testimony of the gospel.

Maybe I am just some kind of freak!

 

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.37?lang=eng&clang=eng#p36

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/12.30?lang=eng&clang=eng#p29

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/10.27?lang=eng&clang=eng#p26

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/philip/4.7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/10.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p15

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-chr/28.9?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/2.35?lang=eng&clang=eng#p34

I think this is a worthwhile topic to examine. I forwarded the idea (that "heart" and "mind" don't carry exactly the same meaning today as they did anciently) not as a completed thesis, but as an impression that has grown on me over time.

It is easy to find scriptural passages that might seem to refute the idea. That may be because the idea is wrong, or it may be because the consideration must be taken as a cultural whole -- not something easily done by citing a few examples. I am no scholar on the ancient Near East. What is obvious to me is that "bowels" means the seat of our emotions, and "heart" (at least in the New Testament) does not refer merely to emotion as a modern use would, but to something that includes the modern idea of "mind". How "heart" overlaps or contrasts with "mind" in the New Testament, I don't know. I suspect it would take an understanding of Palestinian culture of 2000 years ago and a facility with Koine Greek to gain the necessary insight into that.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Vort

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think this is a worthwhile topic to examine. I forwarded the idea not as a completed thesis, but as an impression that has grown on me over time. It is easy to find passages that might seem to refute the idea. That may be because the idea is wrong, or it may be because the consideration must be taken as a cultural whole -- not something easily done by citing a few examples. I am no scholar on the ancient Near East. What is obvious to me is that "bowels" means the seat of our emotions, and "heart" (at least in the New Testament) does not refer merely to emotion as a modern use would, but to something that includes the modern idea of "mind". How "heart" overlaps or contrasts with "mind" in the New Testament, I don't know. I suspect it would take an understanding of Palestinian culture of 2000 years ago and a facility with Koine Greek to gain the necessary insight into that.

(The winky-face is Noodler's Dumas Tulipe Noir in a Pilot Kaküno with a fine nib.)

Translation for the cursively impaired:

Quote

Dude, I'm mostly giving you a hard time.   I always thought of "heart" as "desires" rather than "emotions" and never think of it as "mind".

Edited August 22, 2017 by zil
ETA: Oops. That's a French-rule (Seyes) Clairefontaine spiral notebook.

[Guest]

I'm thinking back to a few very spiritual experiences in my life.  These experiences that I could clearly tell were not of my own mind or emotion or anything earthly.  They were divine.

The "impression" was complete.  It encompassed my physical senses.  It created a visceral reaction from my gut and the feelings of my heart.  It spoke to my mind as if dials were being reset to all my preconceived notions.  A spiritual impression permeates every aspect of our being.  Sometimes it is softer than others so we only comprehend it on an emotional, mental, or physical level.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Translation for the cursively impaired:

Isn't that sad?  An art is being lost.  Curse this texting generation.

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Isn't that sad?  An art is being lost.  Curse this texting generation.

Handwriting is trying to make a comeback as researchers discover its benefit in the learning / remembering process.  But yeah, sad.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Handwriting is trying to make a comeback as researchers discover its benefit in the learning / remembering process.  But yeah, sad.

I'm teaching it to my kids because I think it hasn't died yet.  But my wife wants to teach it because early documents of the Church, the US founding, and many other historical writings are in cursive.  And it just isn't good enough to see the "print version".  You have to see the original writings as proof.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm thinking back to a few very spiritual experiences in my life.  These experiences that I could clearly tell were not of my own mind or emotion or anything earthly.  They were divine.

The "impression" was complete.  It encompassed my physical senses.  It created a visceral reaction from my gut and the feelings of my heart.  It spoke to my mind as if dials were being reset to all my preconceived notions.  A spiritual impression permeates every aspect of our being.  Sometimes it is softer than others so we only comprehend it on an emotional, mental, or physical level.

This is me too.

The Spirit speaks to me through my brain.  But it is a different kind of understanding.  Like @DoctorLemon, I work things logically - it needs to make sense, otherwise, it is chaos in my head and doesn't bring peace.  Sometimes, I get an Aha! moment where I start to understand what I'm studying.  I can distinctly separate these moments with Aha! moments through Spiritual inspiration.  The Spiritual inspiration ones are all-encompassing.  It's not just a mere settling of the brain.  It is a sense of peace that flows through my entire being.  Interestingly, these Aha! moments doesn't always have to require that my questions got answered satisfactorily.  There are also times when the settling of the brain happens even when questions remain unanswered.  But instead of the "unknowns" remaining chaotic in my brain, I feel the settling instead with that all-encompassing sense of peace and rightness.  And then there are times when I "hear" the Spirit like somebody speaking to me but instead of hearing him through my ear, I hear him through my brain.  Sometimes it makes my head hurt because it's not want I wanted to hear.  But then I quit resisting and I get to that settling all-encompassing state.

I just tried to explain it in a paragraph but I'm reading what I wrote and it just doesn't seem to accurately describe it.  It seems just so much easier to say - it's emotions.  I don't know.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I just tried to explain it in a paragraph but I'm reading what I wrote and it just doesn't seem to accurately describe it.  It seems just so much easier to say - it's emotions.  I don't know.

I think that is the tendency simply because of our lack of vocabulary for spiritual things.  Man's language was never meant to describe the spiritual.  So, we do the best we can. 

And sometimes, we say things that don't make any sense.

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Guest

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Often in scripture, the word “heart” is used in part to describe the workings of the spirit with mankind.  In ancient culture the term heart meant the core of what makes a person the person they are.  In our postmodern era; heart has more pagan connotations – such as love (cupid style).  In essence our heart has come to represent our emotions.

While visiting the Mediterranean area, and observing early Traditional Christian art it became obvious to me that during what we “Mormons” call the Great Apostasy – that there was great confusion between manifestations of the spirit and emotions.  Hollywood movies seem to portray emotions as our “spiritual” nature – so many think if a tear was shed that a person’s spirit was touched.  Often, I encounter (even among fellow saints) people claiming to have spiritual manifestations that are in direct conflict to manifestations I have received.  Perhaps I am kind of an extreme example because I do not trust my emotions and I do not believe spiritual manifestations are similar at all to emotions.

So a question for the forum – how do you personally distinguish your emotions from manifestations of the spirit? Or do you even think they are different?

 

The Traveler

For me, a spiritual sensation is different than those accompanying emotions or thoughts, though obviously emotions and mental processes attend spiritual influences, impressions, promptings, revelations, directions, witnesses, etc. Oddly enough perhaps, there is typically a physical component for me. If I am in the right place at the right time and doing the right things, then I can be assured my spiritual experience is of the Lord even when the adversary might attempt to intervene or deceive. And there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the Lord in our emotions and thoughts as well as our words and deeds.

[clbent04]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

how do you personally distinguish your emotions from manifestations of the spirit? Or do you even think they are different?

The greatest indicator of the Spirit working in my life has been the feeling of peace combined with a feeling of a connection to a higher power. If you feel peace at the same time you feel a bond to a higher power, that is the Spirit.  You know the bond is there when you're experiencing it.  Other than that, you can't describe it.  All other positive feelings such as happiness can be replicated in other ways that aren't always prompted by the Spirit

Edited August 23, 2017 by clbent04

[Traveler]

I have come to realize that the primary means of spiritual communication has to do with thoughts.  I use to keep a record of my thoughts.  I called it my thought book.  Sometimes I still make entries.  However, I have come to the conclusion that I have very few original thoughts that are actually mine.  I am of the notion that the majority of my thoughts (if not all) are of external origin. 

Like others, @Carborendum , @anatess2 and @DoctorLemon – I filter my thoughts with logic.  It is very difficult for me to entertain illogical thoughts.  Like @CV75 and @clbent04 I have other filters for my thoughts.  And of course, @Vort is such a kindred spirit – someone I would like to dine with and share insights.

It is interesting to me that no one has indicated that spiritual connections can be both with spirits of light and truth as well as lies.  Many times, I have conversed with someone progressing in apostasy that will say that they are closer to the spirit as they break covenants than they ever have been in their life.  It is also interesting to me that such will express hatred towards saints that they claim are hateful in following to the letter, their covenants.

I believe our scripture indicate that we will be bound by the same spirit in the next life according to the spirit we “list to obey” in this life.  Maybe it is not a matter of being spiritual or not spiritual but rather if we are inclined towards a spirituality of light or one of darkness.  Maybe the question is not identifying what is spiritual but what is light and truth?

 

There is another spiritual experience I have encountered different from thoughts.  Seldom do I talk about such experiences because I cannot explain them – not because they are illogical – just because the experience (like Joseph’s first vision) cannot be adequately described.  These are beyond thoughts and can involve senses such as sight, sound and touch.  But, at least for me, such experiences cannot be shared and later, are difficult (impossible) to keep and the memory will fade somewhat and I am left with just what “thoughts” I am able to hand on to.   No one has to answer but has anyone had what I would call a spiritual experience they are unable to share?

 

The Traveler

[Jojo Bags]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:50 AM, Traveler said:

 

Often in scripture, the word “heart” is used in part to describe the workings of the spirit with mankind.  In ancient culture the term heart meant the core of what makes a person the person they are.  In our postmodern era; heart has more pagan connotations – such as love (cupid style).  In essence our heart has come to represent our emotions.

While visiting the Mediterranean area, and observing early Traditional Christian art it became obvious to me that during what we “Mormons” call the Great Apostasy – that there was great confusion between manifestations of the spirit and emotions.  Hollywood movies seem to portray emotions as our “spiritual” nature – so many think if a tear was shed that a person’s spirit was touched.  Often, I encounter (even among fellow saints) people claiming to have spiritual manifestations that are in direct conflict to manifestations I have received.  Perhaps I am kind of an extreme example because I do not trust my emotions and I do not believe spiritual manifestations are similar at all to emotions.

So a question for the forum – how do you personally distinguish your emotions from manifestations of the spirit? Or do you even think they are different?

 

The Traveler

Elder George Q. Cannon taught about this exact thing.

Quote

I noticed when I was very young in the Church, that men who were greatly gifted of the Lord and had many manifestations, were the men who apostatized; with the exception of the Prophet Joseph Smith, nearly everyone was overthrown.  I suppose the reason of it was that they were lifted up in pride and allowed the adversary to take advantage of them.  I would like well enough to see these gifts and blessings multiplied among us and upon us, that as a people we should have dreams and visions and manifestations of the Spirit; but there is one thing that we have all got to be very careful about, and that is this: I have seen Elders in my experience that when they got their own spirit moved very much they imagined that it was the Spirit of God, and it was difficult in some instances to tell the difference between the suggestions of their own spirit and the voice of the spirit of God.  This is a gift of itself, to be able to distinguish that which suggests itself to our own hearts and that which comes from God.  And we are misled sometimes by our own feeling, because of our inability to distinguish between the voice of the Spirit of God and the suggestions of our own spirit.

George Q. Cannon, JD 22:104

Satan attempts to counterfeit and imitate everything that God does.  You can be assured that Satan uses your own emotions against you if you are susceptible to thinking your emotions are connected to the Holy Spirit.  The Bible Dictionary says, "All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results."  Joseph Smith taught extensively that correct knowledge is necessary for faith and for discernment.  The interesting thing is that very few LDS realize that the terms, "gift of discernment" or "spirit of discernment" do not exist in the scriptures.  The correct scriptural term is the gift of the discerning of spirits.  Joseph Smith taught the early saints more about this gift than any other subject.  He wrote an extensive editorial called, Try the Spirits.  In it, he basically said that the gift of the discerning of spirits was all about discerning which spirit, either good or evil, was influencing you.  It isn't about good and bad choices, it's about discerning which spirit is influencing you to do or think one thing or another.  In the editorial, which was over 5400 words long, Joseph spent a total of two or three sentences describing the influence of good spirits.  He spent the remainder describing and talking about the problem of evil spirits and their influence on the Latter-day Saints.  This is probably because good spirits are not allowed to deceive, but evil spirits main tool of destruction is deception.

Patriarch Hyrum G. Smith taught about discernment.

Quote

I should like also to add my testimony to the testimonies of my brethren who spoke this morning, concerning the spirits that are with us to guide, inspire, and protect us.  Many people have said to me: "Brother Smith, how can you tell the difference between the promptings of the Lord, or his agencies, and the promptings of the adversary or his agencies?"  They say they are unable, in most respects, to discern the difference between those promptings.  I have said: "After earnest and sincere prayer follow your first impression, and you will always go right."  Then they say: "Well, how can I tell which is my first impression?  They are usually so close to each other it is difficult to even tell which is the first impression."  Then I say "The impression made by the Spirit that is for our guide in safety in the Church is always from a good spirit, the Spirit that proclaims and announces the truth, and the truth doesn't need an alibi or crutches to support it." So if you go back and knock down all the crutches, all the alibis, all the excuses, the ifs and ands and buts that attempt to support it, that crowd and urge us—because, as a rule, I have discovered that the adversary's agencies, in their promptings, are usually of an urging, crowding, hurrying nature, while the Spirit of the Lord and his agencies are always of a quiet, sweet, peaceful and convincing character,—so that after we have done away with all the excuses, all the alibis that usually support our experiences, we can discover which is the right spirit.  The spirit of conviction, of peace and of charity, which is the love of the Lord and his work, is not in a hurry, but has time to decide, time to weigh, time to consider; does not act in haste, but in calm deliberation.  We learn then the truth, and we have a guide which is a companion to every member of the Church who is faithful and true, so that we are able, through the blessings of the Lord, to receive that comfort and consolation which will support us, even in time of distress.

Patriarch Hyrum G. Smith, Conference Report, Oct 1931, Pg. 27

Good spirits are of a calm, quiet, reasonable nature, while evil spirits use distraction, confusion, urging, hurrying, excitement, and as PP Pratt said, "strange ecstasies, swoonings, screamings, shoutings, dancings, jumpings...," all of which are emotions.  When I become emotional and think it's the Holy Spirit, I question it, evaluate it, and look at it from different angles.  The one thing I always do is compare it to correct knowledge.  Correct knowledge will keep you from being deceived.  Elder Stephen L. Richards said, "Wisdom cannot be disassociated from discernment, but it involves some other factors, and its applications are rather more specific.  Wisdom is sometimes defined as sound judgment and a high degree of knowledge."  There is enough false doctrine floating around the Church to start a new religion.  Having correct knowledge will eliminate false doctrine and deception.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Jojo Bags

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Elder George Q. Cannon taught about this exact thing.

<quote>

Patriarch Hyrum G. Smith taught about discernment.

<quote>

Good spirits are of a calm, quiet, reasonable nature, while evil spirits use distraction, confusion, urging, hurrying, excitement, and as PP Pratt said, "strange ecstasies, swoonings, screamings, shoutings, dancings, jumpings...."  When I become emotional and think it's the Holy Spirit, I question it, evaluate it, and look at it from different angles.  The one thing I always do is compare it to correct knowledge.  Correct knowledge will keep you from being deceived.  Elder Stephen L. Richards said, "Wisdom cannot be disassociated from discernment, but it involves some other factors, and its applications are rather more specific.  Wisdom is sometimes defined as sound judgment and a high degree of knowledge."  There is enough false doctrine floating around the Church to start a new religion.  Having correct knowledge will eliminate false doctrine and deception.

THAT ^^ was an awesome post.  That is perfect.  I wish I could like it three times.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

There is another spiritual experience I have encountered different from thoughts.  Seldom do I talk about such experiences because I cannot explain them – not because they are illogical – just because the experience (like Joseph’s first vision) cannot be adequately described.  These are beyond thoughts and can involve senses such as sight, sound and touch.  But, at least for me, such experiences cannot be shared and later, are difficult (impossible) to keep and the memory will fade somewhat and I am left with just what “thoughts” I am able to hand on to.   No one has to answer but has anyone had what I would call a spiritual experience they are unable to share?

I think the process of sanctification, when recognized or sensed, is such an experience. The same with grace or a "tender mercy." These experiences seem to have more to do with what we become than with what we come across along the way.

[The Folk Prophet]

Haven't read the full thread, but the workings of the Spirit are a communication of pure knowledge. Whether one has an emotional response to this or not isn't relevant. When the Spirit speaks to me it's as simple as this: I know.