Spiritual impressions


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'll ponder.  I was trying to see if we could reach understanding on that one point before going back to our exchange that initially included the Nibley quote.  I'm wondering now if the only disagreement and / or misunderstanding is simply in how we express the same idea...  Anywho, I'll review the earlier exchange later and ponder some more to see if I can explain anything further / differently.

I'll review it too to see if I can figure out where, if anywhere, I'm saying I actually disagree. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So the original thing I read was when you said, as I understand it, that we are all saved based on whether we choose right or wrong, which we all have the ability to do because of the Light of Christ.

Even accepting that I may have misread you...even then, I don't, for the record, flat out disagree. I stated, "I don't see it that way", but I admit I don't really know how that all works. I don't know how it will work for someone who lives their entire life choosing the good because of the Light of Christ, but never hears the gospel. Does that choosing the good prepare them better for when they hear it? I don't know.

I don't think a full on disagreement was ever my intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank all who are interested and have posted.  I have read a great deal of the responses but rather than an attempt to answer all the questions as asked – I wish to start over with the most basic principles and concepts.  May I start with the basic concept of choice and why the agency of choice requires knowledge.

Let us consider the simple choice between light and dark.  If a person choses light, what happens?  The choice of light eliminates the possibility of darkness.  However, we think in terms of light being something that causes or is the source of light and darkness is the absents of the cause or source of light.  Thus, light is something and darkness is the absents of something.  We do not think of darkness having a source – just light.  So in order to choose dark we must eliminate the sources or causes of light.  We cannot have both.  To choose we must have one and not the other.  If we choose light while in the light and not knowing of darkness or darkness while in darkness and not knowing of light – the power of choice is outside of us because we will not have knowledge of what we did not choose.  To have a choice there must be more than one possible option and we must know of it.  This is also explained in scripture by Nephi.  If we choose light we cannot choose again and choose darkness.  The reason is because if we choose light we choose its source and with that source there is light and darkness is no more.

To expand this concept of choice lets us use another example of adultery over chastity.  In this case we think tend to think of adultery as being something and chastity as not something but rather the lack of the source or cause of adultery.  Once a person chooses adultery, they are stuck with being an adulterer regardless of how many other times they have chosen to not commit adultery.

Let me use one other example – the example of choosing to learn to play the piano.   If we think we have chosen to learn to play the piano but never take any action to practice and discipline the learning to pay – we cannot claim that we made a choice to learn to play the piano.  This is more to my understanding of agency – being the knowledge of choice and the power to make the choice a reality.  If a choice does not become real – can we claim that it, in reality was really chosen?  If we cannot play the piano it is, of necessity, because we either did not know or realize we could choose to learn to play or because we chose not to learn.  If we can play the piano, it is only because we choose to learn to play.

If we put this all together that which is – must be chose to obtain.  Like light, committing adultery or playing the piano we think of the choice in knowing and choosing the source.  To have something different we must either not know of the source or to choose to avoid or be without the source.  But to have the source we must know of it and choose it.  This leads us to understand that G-d cannot sin, not because G-d has chosen not to sin but because G-d has chosen the source of righteousness and therefore cannot sin or choose to sin because it is no longer an option because of the choice of righteousness sin cannot abide his source.


In this mortal existence – I am of the opinion that what we think of as choices are in reality pseudo choices that can be undone or done over and reversed.  I see this as living by faith which is based in hope of something that we do not and cannot know.  The point of this pseudo choice made in faith is that it does have an affect that we can experience but the affect is only temporary.  In order for there to be agency – we must have knowledge and choose the temporary state for our choices.  To make the experience real we must disconnect with the knowledge of our choice of the temporary – we must forget it to make our pseudo choices and their results real unto us and our understandings.


The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2023 at 1:54 PM, scottyg said:

As I was reading D&C 3 this week (specifically verse 2) I was reminded of a past experience. About 7 years ago, my wife and I had our 3rd child. After the child was born, I received a strong spiritual impression that my family was complete - that 3 children were what was being sent to me by the Lord, and that our family as presently constituted would be my family for my duration on the earth. The impression was very specific, comforting, and clear - it was not my own thoughts. I was a bit taken aback by this as my wife and I hadn't ruled out having more children. We took each potential pregnancy one at a time, and had talked about possibly having up to 5 kids. Later, after talking with her about this she also said she felt like we were done having children, and that our family was complete. We were both happy with the impression and life was great.

Fast forward 5 years, and we ended up having a 4th child. We never felt like we needed another one, and we weren't trying to have one, but we also weren't preventing it per se. Now, I love my youngest, and we're very happy to now have 4 kids, but I have always pondered that impression I received. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why the Lord would send me a clear spiritual impression about my long-term family if He knew that our situation would be changing in a few years? Why not just let us continue our lives, and give us the impression to have another kid when the time was right if our family needed one? Neither of us were against having another child, and if that impression came, we would have done it wholeheartedly.

Yes, God's ways are not our ways, but He also doesn't say one thing and then do another. I have thought about if for a couple of years now and it still befuddles me; God is omniscient, so why would I receive an impression from Him that was contradictory to, or inconsistent with what would ultimately happen?

If you received a strong spiritual impression that your family was complete, why did you ignore that strong impression and (with the full cooperation of your wife) create a new child? Did the spiritual impression cause you to believe the laws of nature were going to be miraculously thwarted on your behalf and that not one of the millions upon millions of highly motivated sperm you released over those five years were going to find their way to their “target?” Did you believe the Lord was going to install some kind of miraculous Intrauterine barrie?

You could have made your strong impression a reality by simple means of abstinence, but you elected to to do what comes naturally and a very natural consequence followed in the wake. Considering how you continued to carry on as you did for those five years, the only other way your impression could have had a good chance of coming true is if the Lord is a “hands on,” proactive participant in birth control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2023 at 9:35 PM, The Folk Prophet said:


I'm out. 

I will answer the question – “Can G-d sin?”  My opinion and conclusion is that it is not possible for G-d to sin.  I believe this is the only possible outcome of agency for a being of light and truth.  We are told in scripture that “no unclean thing” can exist in the presents of G-d.  Obviously even a thought of temptation is a unclean thing that cannot exist in the presents of G-d. 

There is, in theatrical physics, the possibility of what is calculated as a white hole.  This is calculated to be a type of black hole that has utilized all the fuels surrounding the black hole in what is known as a feeding zone.  When this zone become empty there is a back pressure that prevents anything from approaching the black hole – this would include even light for select supper massive black holes.  Astronomers believe they have discovered a white hole.

In essence I believe that the “Glory” of G-d so out shines all darkness and evil that it is impossible at any level for such to exist in such powerful “light” as exists with G-d.  Likewise I believe that Satan has so used his agency that it is impossible for him to tell a truth or exhibit any light – only the appearance of such, which is a lie.


The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.