Religion is Obsolete

[_keene]

Jersey Girl: How would you teach a child under age 6/7 to live peacefully in society?

As a child, the mind doesn't work as logically as the adult brain. When teaching a child, you can't teach them concepts, and expect the link to be made to life application. Even with most adults, this doesn't work. The myths and stories of religion (the good ones, that is) can not only teach the concepts, but could also help to create the link to the life they're living every day. A definite punishment/reward system will be the strongest way to create the neural pathways for positive action -- the problem with this is that the child will always try to test the limits of these. If one isn't exact in their punishments, then the child will learn "Don't get caught" rather than "don't do this."

Hmm...

I've got a lot more study to do.

Jersey Girl: I like what you said about "a habit for self-improvement" here, Keene. I'd like to know why you chose age 7 to help children "scrutinize" laws/rules.

I would choose "About" 7. It definitely depends on the progress of the child, much more than the age. I choose seven, because it's about that time where self-awareness starts to kick in. Before that time, any kind of questioning will lead to a "I don't care, I wanna play!" At least, from what I recall in Primary, that's how I felt. I think around the age of 7, the "thinking" part of the mind comes up, and the "feeling" part of the mind is basically set.

If you grab the child right at the beginning of their thought processes, and they start questioning the reasons for their feelings.... But then again, if the feelings are already attached to stories...

Again, I really need to think this through much farther. The main goal is of course setting a habit of enjoyable self-improvement.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl: How would you teach a child under age 6/7 to live peacefully in society?

As a child, the mind doesn't work as logically as the adult brain. When teaching a child, you can't teach them concepts, and expect the link to be made to life application. Even with most adults, this doesn't work. The myths and stories of religion (the good ones, that is) can not only teach the concepts, but could also help to create the link to the life they're living every day. A definite punishment/reward system will be the strongest way to create the neural pathways for positive action -- the problem with this is that the child will always try to test the limits of these. If one isn't exact in their punishments, then the child will learn "Don't get caught" rather than "don't do this."

Hmm...

I've got a lot more study to do.

Jersey Girl: I like what you said about "a habit for self-improvement" here, Keene. I'd like to know why you chose age 7 to help children "scrutinize" laws/rules.

I would choose "About" 7. It definitely depends on the progress of the child, much more than the age. I choose seven, because it's about that time where self-awareness starts to kick in. Before that time, any kind of questioning will lead to a "I don't care, I wanna play!" At least, from what I recall in Primary, that's how I felt. I think around the age of 7, the "thinking" part of the mind comes up, and the "feeling" part of the mind is basically set.

If you grab the child right at the beginning of their thought processes, and they start questioning the reasons for their feelings.... But then again, if the feelings are already attached to stories...

Again, I really need to think this through much farther. The main goal is of course setting a habit of enjoyable self-improvement.

Children are thinking from pre-birth. A good way to support your plan or goals would be to study cognitive, moral and personality development. The way a child thinks, processes, perceives and constructs knowledge (develops concepts) changes over a period of years.

I'm partial to the work of Erikson, Kohlberg, Vygotsky and Piaget.

But that's just me...

I like your general plan. I think if you combine it with study in child development so you know what your child is able to understand and how, you'll be good to go!

Jersey Girl

p.s. One of the reason's I disagree with the LDS practice of baptism at age 8 has to do with the characteristics of a child's development at that stage.

[_keene]

Keene,

Gaz,

Let me put this in terms you can currently relate to, since you are prepareing yourself to be married. The Old testament uses the same word when discussing a man knowing his wife, and a man knowing God: yada. As a man was to leave his Father and Mother and cleave unto his wife and thus become one flesh with her, so he is to leave the things of the world and become one with God. As faithfulness in marriage is essential to the nurturing of love, so faithfulness in keeping gospel covenants is essential to nurturing a relationship with your Father in Heaven. the same applies to sacrifice and devotion. This is why you will find references to apostacy being described as adultery, and Israels covenant with God as a marriage. (Jeremiah 2:20-37; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1-3)

A very interesting concept, and one that I could conceivably agree with. As we become one flesh in marriage, I can conceive becoming as one spirit with God in the afterlife. The major difference I see is a major conflict of beliefs as to the nature of God. I believe in God as a single-consciousness, in a very pantheistic sense. I believe that joining with God in the spirit is much more literal than just living in his presence. I believe that we actually BECOME him. I also believe that this happens whether you're righteous or not. My reasoning for this is very basic: In death, from the point of the consciousness, joining the infinite, or becoming non-existant, would feel and seem exactly the same. It probably doesn't make sense in a christian context...

Keene, if you want to know if there is a God, do the things he asks you to do, and he'll make himself known. It requires Faith on your part.

How can you assure to me that this act is different from auto-suggestion?

Much of my self-improvement over the last few years has come from this incredibly powerful technique. I first learned of it in Napolean Hill's excellent book, "Think and grow rich." It was then repeated in various other books, including those by Anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, and other greats of personal power and change. The basic process is to think of a personality trait or belief about yourself that you would like to have, and then you repeat it to yourself. Each time you repeat it, you change the tone of your voice to one that more strongly believes it. You do the actions AS IF you believe it. Eventually, the unconscious mind creates the connection, and the change becomes a habit that you fully believe. I used this technique to boost my motivation, to change my personality on a fundamental level, and to greatly improve my life in various aspects that I chose.

So, how can you assure me that this is more than a subconscious effect? And, how can you assure me that these changes will actually bring me a good life?

When the early Church in this dispensation desired to act under divine guidance in their directing of the church, the same rule could be applied on a personal level. D&C 107:30-31

30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

There it is for you; The requirements for the enjoyment of the company of the Holy Ghost. The requirements for revelation.

Wasn't the point of the holy ghost for reassurance? I've read this post several times and don't feel that issue was addressed. Reassurance, to me, seems like a hollow goal, and not really one I'd like to work for. I also still think that reassurance, in effect, kills motivation. As another example: Communism. The people are reassured that they will get their needs, therefore they don't have motivation to produce a good product.

Now, on to revelation!

The only way to know God is by revelation. People can study for their entirte lives every form of scripture from every religion on earth, sit through every class offered by every university in the fields of religious studies, scriptural commentary, philosophy, and still never come to a knowledge of who God is. God is made known by way of revelation, or he remains a mystery. You will never have any answeres to any of your ponderings in regards to how to raise your yet to be conceived child until you receive a revelation. Until then you will remain uncertain as to what direction both you and it should proceed forward in life.

So, if God has revealed himself to me (which I believe he has), then there seems to be a problem... My revelation is very different from yours. The only way to resolve this dissonance, as far as I know, would be to make the assumption that God reveals himself through a feeling, not through a knowledge. Otherwise, everyone would have the same revelation. If you have an alternative assumption or explanation for this dissonance, I'd be happy to consider it.

I think this is a pretty decent middle ground. I'm not discounting your revelation, and you're not discounting mine. Now the question arises, how can we find the nature of God, beyond the feeling?

Lets use a scriptural example of how someone receives a revelation. Acts chapter ten telsl the story of a man named Cornelius. Now Cornelius was a gentile, not even a Jew! Nevertheless he was a devout man, he and all his house feared God, prayed daily, and gave generously to those in need. While God was made to seal the heavens to the chosen race, Cornelius opened the heavens because of his faithfulness, and the Lord honored him by sending Peter, who was told to teach this Gentile by the Lord in a dream.

Righteous work opens the heavens. And not merely action, it must be sincere to be honored. This is represented in the rejection of Israels fast (Isaiah 58:1-11)

This is an interesting scripture. But I have a question about this script: Under what assumptions were the writers of these scriptures under when they considered the revealed God? Again, since our revelations are different, this is a very important question to ask. To summarize the question succinctly, Why is your God different from Mine? And how can we tell which is "true"?

2 Nephi 32:4-5
4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

let me ask you this. In all honesty, if God were to make himself known to you, what would you do with that knowledge? Are there things in your life now that you think he would not like? If so, then stop them now.

You've been very kind in answering my questions, so I'd be happy to answer yours. If god were to make himself known to me, I would use the knowledge in the way I saw fit. That would definitely depend on what knowledge was given. If he gave me rules, I would probably follow the rules. If he gave me a feeling, I'd probably follow the feeling. I can't really make the assumption of how he wants to make himself known. But, I believe he already has made himself known to me. When he did, I felt a desire to study and seek improvement in every action and thought I make. I never felt as if I had to follow a rule or law, but rather to simply question myself with "How can I do better?" The guides given to me were completely my own.

Are there things in my life that God would not like? No. Well, maybe some of my laziness, but I have recently found that much of that was a chemical imbalance -- Ritalin has greatly improved this. So, No. Nothing.

Alma 12:9-11
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

You say you do not look to the past, but concern yourself with now and the future. Good. Put aside your former dealings with the church, and instead concentrate on the here and now and ask yourself, what is the purpose of life. Why am I here, Where do we go after we die. Whats all this about.

I constantly do ask those questions. Again, it's very strange that we come up with such different answers. Why do you think that is?

The witness of the Holy Ghost answers this. Because if the Book of Mormon is true, and Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, then all the rest is true concerning all the Doctrines of the Church. Just ask. Moronis promise is how I know, and it was the reason people asked me to baptise them on my mission. The Holy Ghost chases away all skepticism. It gives you a foundation to operate from in all that you do.

What happens, then, if when following Moroni's promise, you get a resounding "No" ? And yet again, how can you assure me that this is supernatural, and not a subconscious effect along the lines of auto-suggestion? My feelings, experiences, and revelations seem to take a very different path than yours, even though, at least for some time, our actions were very similar. This seems strange to me. Doesn't it seem strange to you?

Gaz

Keene

[_Gazelam]

It is one thing to have a revelation, it is entirely another to understand it. As a matter of fact, revelation is misunderstood more often than it is understood. "How can this be?" you might ask. "Why would God give us something we can't understand?"

Lets look at the Bible. The world is full of people expressing a belief in the Bible, while at the same time disagreeing on virtually every principle of doctrine. Obviously its one thing to have a Bible, and entirely another to understand it. Even among Latter-day Saints, its one thing to have the Book of Isaiah, and entirely another to understand it.

It takes revelation to understand revelation. Scripture to understand scripture. Try comparing what you perceive as a revelation, with the prophets God has called in the past, and the things they have written. Does your revelation prompt you to have Faith in Jesus Christ? To be Baptised and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or to desire this for others? To attend the temple and seek out further understanding and make higher covenants? if not, then it is not of God, for all of Gods prophets in the past testified of these things.

The principles of the gospel are consistent. If we wish to understand what Moses knew, we must seek out the Spirit he carried with him. What did Moses do to draw close to the Lord? prayer, Obedience to the revelations he progressively received, covenanting with God, attending the Temple. Sacrifice and service to others.

Lets use a scriptural example. Lehi had a vision of the tree of life, and taught it to his sons. Nephi could have taken his Fathers words at face value, and never made the spiritual connection to make the vision his own. This is what occured with his brothers, who wrote their Fathers visions off as the ramblings of an old man. But Nehi wanted more:

1 Nephi 10:17-19
17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come—I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of hold as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

Nephi knew that if he wanted to have an understanding of what the former prophets knew, he needed to follow after them. All that he discovered in this search for increased understanding of spiritual things are found in 1 Nephi chp. 11-14

Even after this, he states "Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard." (2 Nephi 4:16)

Revelation and its application are a process. Take what you have learned by way of the Spirit, and tie it up with your study and prayer of the former prophets. If what you have learned does not tie in with it, then it is not of God and should be cast aside. Pray and study and gain the spirit the prophest wrote in, and the Holy Ghost will make the connections you need. there is a constancy in gospel principles, for "the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever." (2 Nephi 2:4) if we are familiar with the voice that is speaking in the scriptures, we will recognize that voice when it speaks to us. What your seeking Keene (and others) is the is a familiarity with that voice. The scriptures are our textbook in understanding persoanl revelation.

Gaz

Gaz

[_keene]

It is one thing to have a revelation, it is entirely another to understand it. As a matter of fact, revelation is misunderstood more often than it is understood. "How can this be?" you might ask. "Why would God give us something we can't understand?"

Lets look at the Bible. The world is full of people expressing a belief in the Bible, while at the same time disagreeing on virtually every principle of doctrine. Obviously its one thing to have a Bible, and entirely another to understand it. Even among Latter-day Saints, its one thing to have the Book of Isaiah, and entirely another to understand it.

It takes revelation to understand revelation. Scripture to understand scripture. Try comparing what you perceive as a revelation, with the prophets God has called in the past, and the things they have written. Does your revelation prompt you to have Faith in Jesus Christ? To be Baptised and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or to desire this for others? To attend the temple and seek out further understanding and make higher covenants? if not, then it is not of God, for all of Gods prophets in the past testified of these things.

But how can I know that these prophets were revealed the correct things? How do you know that the judeo-christian prophets are the ones who understood their revelation correctly? What about the hindus? Or the buddhists? Or the egyptian prophets who spoke of many gods?

If my revelation more closely matches those beliefs, and the prophets of those religions are consistent with my study and revelations, then how can you assure me that these things are not of God?

I suppose a more succinct question would be: What authority does the Bible (and vicariously, the Book of Mormon) hold that religious texts of other religions do not hold? How is that conclusion made?

The principles of the gospel are consistent. If we wish to understand what Moses knew, we must seek out the Spirit he carried with him. What did Moses do to draw close to the Lord? prayer, Obedience to the revelations he progressively received, covenanting with God, attending the Temple. Sacrifice and service to others.

Moses also was upset at his commanders for allowing captives of war to survive:

Numbers 31:
14Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

I'm sorry, Gaz, but this goes very, VERY strongly against what was revealed to me. Since my revelation doesn't match the ones of the prophets of old, should I discount my revelation? Or discount the prophets? Why?

Lets use a scriptural example. Lehi had a vision of the tree of life, and taught it to his sons. Nephi could have taken his Fathers words at face value, and never made the spiritual connection to make the vision his own. This is what occured with his brothers, who wrote their Fathers visions off as the ramblings of an old man. But Nehi wanted more:

1 Nephi 10:17-19
17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come—I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of hold as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

Nephi knew that if he wanted to have an understanding of what the former prophets knew, he needed to follow after them. All that he discovered in this search for increased understanding of spiritual things are found in 1 Nephi chp. 11-14

Even after this, he states "Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard." (2 Nephi 4:16)

This little section here, I will agree with. I would suggest everyone try to have their own revelation. I would not, however, suggest that it be discounted if it doesn't match the judeo-christian viewpoint, or even if it doesn't match the viewpoint of your fathers. Ultimately, I know of no verifiable way to assure that anyone else's revelations were interpreted correctly.

Can you think of a way to verify to me that the judeo-christian (and perhaps even the Mormon) interpretation is the correct one?

Revelation and its application are a process. Take what you have learned by way of the Spirit, and tie it up with your study and prayer of the former prophets. If what you have learned does not tie in with it, then it is not of God and should be cast aside. Pray and study and gain the spirit the prophest wrote in, and the Holy Ghost will make the connections you need. there is a constancy in gospel principles, for "the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever." (2 Nephi 2:4) if we are familiar with the voice that is speaking in the scriptures, we will recognize that voice when it speaks to us. What your seeking Keene (and others) is the is a familiarity with that voice. The scriptures are our textbook in understanding persoanl revelation.

Gaz

To summarize my questions:

1.) WHICH former prophets? How do you know?
2.) What authority does the Bible hold over that of other religious texts, and how did it get that authority?
3.) If my revelation does not match the judeo-christian viewpoint of the Bible, how can I be ASSURED that it is my revelation (or the interpretation thereof), and not the Bible, that is at fault?

and another few points I don't feel were addressed sufficiently to appease my doubts

4.) Is reassurance a good goal to work towards? What motivation towards a better lifestyle will I have if I am reassured of future developments?
5.) How can you assure me that the path to judeo-christian revelation is different from Auto-Suggestion or other psychological effects?

[_Gazelam]

You ask excellent questions, and they are questions that should be asked, and answers given.

Q. "Is reassurance a good goal to work towards? What motivation towards a better lifestyle will I have if I am reassured of future developments?"

[b[ A:.[/b] Is reassurance a good goal? That depends, how blindly do you want to walk through life? Do you want to know the purpose of life? If so, then by all means seek assurance. A better lifestyle is never promised. What is often promised is struggle and testing. that's why the gospel is often refered to as the refiners fire. Your familiar with the stories of the early days of the church, it is rife with trial and purgeing. Weeding out the weakhearted and refineing the foundation of a dispensation. Each of us is expected to seek out our own dispensation, and refine ourselves. (Mal 3:2)

Q. WHICH former prophets? How do you know? (I think all of your other questions can be summarized under these two questions)

The answer to this is again found in the promise of Moroni.

Morini 10:3-5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Notice he says to ask God if these things are true. Ask a specific question. What do the missionaries ask you to ask? "Is the Book of Mormon true?"
If the Book of Mormon is true, then the Church is true, the priesthood is real, and Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

You are getting a specific answer to a specific question, with vast amounts of truth attached to the answer. With the answer to the question of the Book of Mormon, then you know Adam was real, the Bible is true, there was a flood, Christ is the Son of God, the testimony of the New testament is true. All your other questions you've expressed are answered. (See D&C sec. 20.)

How is the Spirit different from emotion? Because emotion doesent educate. emotion doesent increase intelligence. The Holy Ghost reveals, makes truths known.
D&C 6 14-15
14 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, blessed art thou for what thou hast done; for thou hast inquired of me, and behold, as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time.
15 Behold, thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things that thou mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth;

Add to this D&C 8:2
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.


When you feel the Holy Ghost answer you r prayer, believe me, you'll know its not emotion. Think of the times you felt the spirit in the past, and multiply that a hundred fold. It is not emotion. Its comparable to being filled with light, and comforted.

Gaz

[_Mephitus]

And if the spirit tells me the complete opposite? that it confirms the falsehood of the church? that's precisely what happened to me. And if you try for a second to say i left to do sin, because it was too hard to stay, or any other personal attack like that, let me give you the issues that arose from my questioning the church to begin with.

I began actualy questioning in early highschool. But like most Mormons, i thought this was my problem, not the churches. Any time i brought any of these questions up, rather than recieving the answers i was able to find later, i was always told, "pray on it, and you will get the answer that its ok". And so, very quickly i stopped asking. Oh sure, i did make the attempts that everyone was expected to make. But i NEVER got confirmation that the church was true, merely that there was some truth in parts of its doctrine. Zoom forward to 4 years ago, I had been doing private research on church history and some of its more "questionable" areas. At this time, the ultimatem to go on a mission had been issued by my parents, and so i gave unto the question, "is the church a lie?". I received something that was unfathomably powerfull and indescribable. The best way of putting it, is that it was a divine "YES, DAMNIT!".(I don't know words in english to put it stronger) That answer of course showed me what i had already learned through personal quests for knowledge and understanding. It of course led me to tell my parents that i had decided not to go on a mission.(i have still not told them why) Rather than an accepting "ok, we understand" i got this sentance "you have 1 week to get the hell out of my house". I had no money, no car, and no job.(I had JUST moved here to utah with my mother) and so was left homeless for a few months because of this.(i know how to work my ass off, so i didn't stay so for very long) It would have been infinately easier to stay in the church with the lies, than to leave. So i ask you GAZ, if you trust in the spirit to tell you the truth. When it reveals to others the truth that's in opposition to what you seem to MUST have true, what then?

[_keene]

You ask excellent questions, and they are questions that should be asked, and answers given.

I'm glad you see the value in my questions; these are very real concerns.

Q. "Is reassurance a good goal to work towards? What motivation towards a better lifestyle will I have if I am reassured of future developments?"

[b[ A:.[/b] Is reassurance a good goal? That depends, how blindly do you want to walk through life? Do you want to know the purpose of life? If so, then by all means seek assurance. A better lifestyle is never promised. What is often promised is struggle and testing. that's why the gospel is often refered to as the refiners fire. Your familiar with the stories of the early days of the church, it is rife with trial and purgeing. Weeding out the weakhearted and refineing the foundation of a dispensation. Each of us is expected to seek out our own dispensation, and refine ourselves. (Mal 3:2)

But why so much trial? I would think that the trials, purging, and testing are a result of the reassurance. Again, if the afterlife is assured, then there's no need to take immediate action towards bettering your current lifestyle. Thus, you suffer through poverty, ridicule, etc., all with the assurance that you'll be fine LATER.

This seems to go, again, very strongly against what was revealed to me. God impressed on me that Eternity includes ALL time, including the past and present. It's not something to be given to you after you die, it's something you attain immediately, after you decide that your life and happiness are the sole responsibility of only yourself.

Q. WHICH former prophets? How do you know? (I think all of your other questions can be summarized under these two questions)

The answer to this is again found in the promise of Moroni.

Morini 10:3-5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Notice he says to ask God if these things are true. Ask a specific question. What do the missionaries ask you to ask? "Is the Book of Mormon true?"
If the Book of Mormon is true, then the Church is true, the priesthood is real, and Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

You are getting a specific answer to a specific question, with vast amounts of truth attached to the answer. With the answer to the question of the Book of Mormon, then you know Adam was real, the Bible is true, there was a flood, Christ is the Son of God, the testimony of the New testament is true. All your other questions you've expressed are answered. (See D&C sec. 20.)

This doesn't resolve my earlier questions, of how can it be possible that we have such vast differences on what was revealed to us? It's at this point where I begin to wonder on the validity of scriptures -- so many people were revealed so many different things. How can we tell which is correct, then, if we have both gotten vastly different answers when practicing Moroni's promise? How do we know which revelation to trust? If God revealed to you that the Book of Mormon is true, but then revealed to me that it isn't, then which of us got the right revelation?

Your previous answer said that we must test it against the previous prophets, but then, which prophets? This leads you back to Moroni's promise, which again gives us conflicting answers. There must be another way we can each test our revelations, to find which one (if either) is true.

How is the Spirit different from emotion? Because emotion doesent educate. emotion doesent increase intelligence. The Holy Ghost reveals, makes truths known.

This statement seems immediately contradictory to your previous one. If the holy ghost educates, then why do we need to ask such a specific question to get any meaningful answer? It seems as if we must be educated FIRST, and revealed to SECOND. It seems misleading that the Holy Ghost would then educate you on exactly what you've just educated yourself about. In fact, it does sound extremely similar to the concept of Auto-Suggestion. Could you explain further?

D&C 6 14-15
14 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, blessed art thou for what thou hast done; for thou hast inquired of me, and behold, as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time.
15 Behold, thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things that thou mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth;

Add to this D&C 8:2
2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.


When you feel the Holy Ghost answer you r prayer, believe me, you'll know its not emotion. Think of the times you felt the spirit in the past, and multiply that a hundred fold. It is not emotion. Its comparable to being filled with light, and comforted.

I didn't ask whether the Holy Ghost was emotion. I asked how you can assure me that it is different from Auto-Suggestion, or other psychological effects.

Allow me to elaborate...

Dramamine, the motion-sickness pill, when taken in high doses (About one to one and a half tubes) will cause some incredibly powerful hallucinations. It is incredibly difficult on this particular drug to tell the difference between a hallucination and a reality. Voices will be heard with such clarity that you will turn around and look for who said them. Often times you will find them, talk to them for a while, and then blink and they're gone. With a bit of effort and meditation, these delusions can be controlled. You can forcibly hallucinate dead relatives, friends... I saw my Cat jump out of a shadow in the wall, crawl up onto my bed, and walk directly into my leg muscle, where she disappeared. This is extremely powerful evidence of the power of the mind.

Richard Bandler speaks of a technique to multiply your mindset "a hundred fold." With meditation and practice, any comforting thought or experience can become so incredibly empowering, intense, and wonderful, that you would feel able to dance on the ceiling.

I have felt what you would describe as the Holy Ghost many times. Sometimes I have created that feeling, and sometimes it has come to me naturally. I have felt a variety of experiences that can be described as being filled with light and comforted. Many times, I have just known that I had just seen the face of God, and he had just given me a perfect knowledge of the existance of the universe. And not many of these moments were drug induced, although some were.

I, personally, believe that I have been visited from God, and that he has revealed to me something incredibly different from what you were revealed. But, I have no way to show that any of my visitations were any more than psychological effects, and the power of the mind. So, I ask again, how can you verify to me that the holy spirit as you describe it is any more than a psychological effect?

Gaz

Keene

[_wenglund]

I was recently trying to explain my beliefs to my betrothed, and I found it rather difficult. I ended up drawing graphs, pulling up various scientific websites, having her read several wikipedia articles on hallucinogens, entheogens, quotes from Timothy Leary, the Mayan Calendar, Zen Buddhism, it goes on and on and on and on. When I got to my testimony of Christ, I made a new connection that I wanted to share.

Jesus makes religion obsolete.

This is quite a large statement if taken out of context, so allow me to try putting it into the correct context - that of evolution.

Now, allow me to make a separation. I am not talking about evolution as most people understand it. The current evolutionary theory does not include the origin of life, or anything before that. It also doesn't try to explain anything supernatural such as consciousness, purpose, or afterlife. The evolution I will be speaking of is a much more universal concept -- I consider it the evolution of the one-consciousness, or of God.

Evolution, or creation, has always sped up exponentially. It took roughly 14 billion years for the planets to form. 1 billion years for life to form. 65 million years ago, mammals took over. 4-ish million years ago, primates came forth. 100,000 years ago, humans.

You can see each change came faster and faster. Then came the change that brought religions. about 4000bc, Laws and Nations came about. The laws of abraham and Moses were all the rage. These laws allowed nations to grow, it gave people a reason to protect eachother in much larger numbers than simple tribes. It worked quite well. Until about 40-400 ad. By this point, laws were getting a bit out of control. It was time for a new evolutionary step. Jesus came and "fullfilled the law." The christian movement took over, and for the next several hundred years the new idea that laws were a thing of the past seeped into everyone's mind. The step was completed come the 1700's, when the industrial revolution began.

At this point, Power took the place of Laws. Money has become the new ruling class, laws are archaic and mean nothing. Money and Power have taken over. Until the internet. 1992.

The speed of evolution is growing quite quickly. The advent of the internet has brought the new wave, that of Ethics. People cry out against laws, and they cry out against power. The 9/11 attacks, and the Enron scandal show this quite well. A cry for ethics, for doing what is right, regardless of laws is sweeping the nation. All the pro-drug documentaries, the more and more numerous protests, and the hard-left rule over the media show that the next rally cry is one above laws, and above power.

I'm probably explaining this horribly. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=lungold There's a video about the mayan calendar, where he explains the events and levels of the evolution of consiousness much better than I am. The main point I'm trying to get across is this:

Jesus Fullfilled the law -- he preached personal power, and acting with your own mind and conscience. Why then, is the law so heavily preached in christian, and especially Mormon doctrines?

And another question: Does following the laws improve the power of your own mind and consciousness? Do they hold you back? Why or why not?

To me, Christ's fulfilling of the law did not put an end to all laws, it merely subsummed the lower law that governed from the time of Moses, under the new and higher law presented by Christ. If interested, I explain this in more detail in an online article titled Covenants and Associated Testators, Promises, Laws, Rituals, and Tokens. The article was written in conjunction with and article on "works and Salvation", but I think it also has application to the issue you raise.

If I am correct, then religion, or at least Christ-based religion, is not absolete.

What do you think?

Also, I was listening to Dennis Prager yesterday (a re-broadcast from earlier in the week), and he posited a rather fascinating hypothesis that ties into this discussion as well: he said that when religion and religious influence is diminished in society, the government and governmental influence is, of necessity, increased. I wish I could find the exact quote and reasoning, but I was unsuccessful. He used as an example the issue of sexual harrassment in the work place. He noted that because of his religious values, both he and his two boys would be disinclined to make to treat women disrespectfully and in sexually inappropriate ways, regardless of whether there were laws preventing it. But, for those who lack that kind of religious influence, the government then needs to step in with the kinds of over-the-top "speach code" legislation like what one may find in California these days.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

He used as an example the issue of sexual harrassment in the work place. He noted that because of his religious values, both he and his two boys would be disinclined to make to treat women disrespectfully and in sexually inappropriate ways, regardless of whether there were laws preventing it. But, for those who lack that kind of religious influence, the government then needs to step in with the kinds of over-the-top "speach code" legislation like what one may find in California these days.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And yet many men aren't religious, yet they still treat women respectfully and would do so without the current workplace laws, simply because that is how they live their lives, without government and without religion. That is what Keene is talking about, I think.