Prayer and Learning by the Spirit

[_Jay]

None of which addresses the point in my question.
In terms of "seeking out truth" by utilising the Holy Spirit, there are posters on here who have done so and been witnessed that the Church is true.
Likewise, there are posters on here who have done so and been witnessed that the Church is false.
In what discernible way is the feeling given by the Holy Spirit different to the feeling given by some other supernatural force, or by the feeling we can generate ourselves?

Anything Jay?
Any response at all to this?
It's a pretty valid question.

There is no question in my mind that many (if not most) who have received answers have not had them confirmed (either for or against the Church) by the Holy Ghost. We can't expect the Holy Ghost to come at our whim. It is a relationship that is built over time.

In what discernable way can any supernatural force be described? A supernatural force is by definition beyond scientific understanding or laws of nature.

[_Themis]

Can you tell me what needs to be present for you to recognize your spouses voice? You mentioned that you experience her all the time, so this should be easy. If you can't detail a physical process such as that, how would you expect to detail the recognition of the Holy Spirt, which is beyond the physical.

I didn't think I would need to detail a process since you should already know this. You can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. These senses allow you to interact with the other person. As they talk you may hear their distinct sound. Memory allows you to recognize it later. The problem with the HG or spiritual experience is you have not yet determined if this unseen being exists. In what way have you interacted with it to know it actually exists. We have already ruled out the feeling of certainty as a way to know it exists since one can have that and be very wrong. This was the only thing you brought up. Do you have any other ways?

It is only hard to discern the Holy Ghost if you have not gone through the learning process. Sadly few within the Church bother with going through the process and as a result we see the lack of spiritual discernment within the Church today. Anytime a thing is unknown, we characterize it as difficult. Most think that it can't be a problem with what we are doing, so it must be a difficulty with the process.

Since you think you have it figured out, what would you suggest a member of the church do then? Maybe even the GA's since they don't seem to have a better handle on it.

The limits of the body are pretty well defined, at least physically.

What are these limitations that the body could not create on it's own in relation to the spiritual experience?

The spirit is a whole different game, it is pretty much an unknown. The environment is an all inclusive term that encompasses the spirit, this world and ourselves. Since we don't understand the spirit itself, then our understanding of limits of the spiritual and the environment is also unknown.

If it is an unknown then how do you know anything about it? When I say environment I mean to include how the natural environment may affect the body and what we experience.

[_Jay]

Can you tell me what needs to be present for you to recognize your spouses voice? You mentioned that you experience her all the time, so this should be easy. If you can't detail a physical process such as that, how would you expect to detail the recognition of the Holy Spirt, which is beyond the physical.

I didn't think I would need to detail a process since you should already know this. You can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. These senses allow you to interact with the other person. As they talk you may hear their distinct sound. Memory allows you to recognize it later. The problem with the HG or spiritual experience is you have not yet determined if this unseen being exists. In what way have you interacted with it to know it actually exists. We have already ruled out the feeling of certainty as a way to know it exists since one can have that and be very wrong. This was the only thing you brought up. Do you have any other ways?

What I was asking was describe how you recognize a voice? What is the processes that you use. What makes the sound distinct. How does memory work with it. We know that the voice makes a sound and that is registered on the ear drum, but what from there?

We don't understand at all how the human body can do these things that appear so easy. Try writing a computer program that will recognize your wife's voice and you will start to understand the difficulty of the problem. Now take that beyond the physical and it's even more difficult to even conceive much less describe.

It's clear that my goal of finding others that are seeking the spirit is not going to happen on this forum. Instead I have found a group of people that want to justify their own inability of feeling the spirit and those that simply want to tear down the experiences of others. That is not my desire.

[_SteelHead]

It's clear that my goal of finding others that are seeking the spirit is not going to happen on this forum. Instead I have found a group of people that want to justify their own inability of feeling the spirit and those that simply want to tear down the experiences of others. That is not my desire.

Oh irony, thy name is Jay.

Jay, did you familiarize yourself with the conversations, and the types of discussions common here before jumping in thinking everyone was going to lap up your spiritual insight?

[_Bazooka]

There is no question in my mind that many (if not most) who have received answers have not had them confirmed (either for or against the Church) by the Holy Ghost.

On what basis can you make such a claim?
You have no comprehension what others have or haven't felt and how that differs from what you believe you have felt.
But let's put that to the test.
1. Describe for us what sensations and feelings denote a communication from God by way of a confirmation by the Holy Spirit.
2. Define for us how you KNOW that communication was from God and not from some self generated or other supernatural force.

We can't expect the Holy Ghost to come at our whim. It is a relationship that is built over time.

Who said anything about a whim?
Are you belittling the intentions of others who have sought the Holy Ghost?
Are you saying that your experience was just that bit more special?

In what discernable way can any supernatural force be described? A supernatural force is by definition beyond scientific understanding or laws of nature.

That's a definition, not a description.
I'm asking you describe what you felt, saw, heard etc that made it identifiable as a communication from the spirit.

[_Themis]

What I was asking was describe how you recognize a voice? What is the processes that you use. What makes the sound distinct. How does memory work with it. We know that the voice makes a sound and that is registered on the ear drum, but what from there?

It's not hard to go into more detail. There is a lot of knowledge which can be tested by anyone.

We don't understand at all how the human body can do these things that appear so easy.

I take it then you admit you do not know the limits of the human body. This is a major problem you don't want to deal with in regards to what we experience. Especially in regards to the spiritual.

Try writing a computer program that will recognize your wife's voice and you will start to understand the difficulty of the problem.

But it is being done. We can do just that.

Now take that beyond the physical and it's even more difficult to even conceive much less describe.

You haven't established anything beyond the physical.

It's clear that my goal of finding others that are seeking the spirit is not going to happen on this forum. Instead I have found a group of people that want to justify their own inability of feeling the spirit and those that simply want to tear down the experiences of others. That is not my desire.

This is a discussion board. You appear to be looking for an echo chamber. I have just been asking you questions so that you can show how you think it works. Keep in mind that most here know as much or more about the topic then you.

I remember doing just what you are now when some people started asking the hard questions. I would justify it like you that they are not really looking for the truth. If you want discussion I and others are more then willing. I will attempt to answer your questions, but I would also expect you to do likewise and not ignore the hard ones. I suspect you will not be here long.

[_subgenius]

so....since entire populations disagree with the premise put forth in the DoI you now consider those premises to not be truths at all...got it!

I thought we were talking about self-evident. You could try and be honest, and not make up what I never said. You do realize the LDS church would consider what you did a sin. One thing I get from your posts here and on other threads is that you are not a thinker.

ooooh...and you would certainly know a "thinker" when you met one, wouldn't you? it would be obvious...it would be self-evident...and you wouldn't even care if other people disagreed with you, because you would "know" that this person (or that person), was a "thinker"....err, wait a second.

Truth is in the proposition. Subjective truths are those propositions that are true only under certain conditions or true for some and not true for others.

yawn....so, what i said about your view of the DoI is "true"...thanks.
Once again we see Themis use words as defined by Themis and as "true" as Themis determines...makes things so much easier....especially for those of us who don't be "thinkers".
such charity

and for the record...as usual...you are wrong...that is not at all what self-evident means....or implies.

You could stop provide what you think it means, but I know you are usually afraid to take a position in case someone questions you on it.

What i "think"...you have already claimed that i do not "think", therefore why bother?
I mean, if i have to actually provide a link to definition of such a non-thinker word then what is the point?
But hey...just for kicks..and since i don't be thinker...i have to rely on them there fancy dictionary.

self-evident is:
"evident without proof or reasoning" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident

hmmm...nothing subjective there...but wait...that mystery word "evident"
"clear to the sight or mind; clear to the vision or understanding" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1391018447

you are right, how silly of me to "think" that using the term self-evident on this forum would not require a clear definition, that such a term would not be "self-evident" itself...thanks for the guidance.

Yep, its pretty clear how you "think".

[_Themis]

You are a dishonest person Subby. You continue to make things up about what a person is saying. I do agree with the links to the definition though. My posts never disagreed with them.

[_subgenius]

You are a dishonest person Subby. You continue to make things up about what a person is saying. I do agree with the links to the definition though. My posts never disagreed with them.

well, let us see about that:

you agree that self-evident is something that is "clear to the sight or mind; clear to the vision or understanding - without proof or reasoning"
but
here viewtopic.php?p=788640#p788640
you say - "It's not self-evident if people cannot agree."
so
now
you claim that these two posts of yours do not "disagree"
so

you now say that something cannot be "clear to the sight or mind; clear to the vision or understanding - without proof or reasoning" unless people agree.
(later you can explain how everyone is able to agree about something being clear in YOUR mind, etc...you know, how "self" is determined by "others")

Note that i claimed you disagreed with the DoI's claims of something being self-evident because clearly some people disagree with those claims...and that, according to you, means that the DoI's claim of something being self-evident is false.
and then you disagreed with that.

Then as a cherry on top...you accuse me of dishonesty when i point all of this out.

or maybe by "people" you just mean some imaginary or arbitrary number of people had to agree in order for it to qualify as "self-evident"...which begs the question of how many people? 1? 3?...172?....32 million?

yep...integrity, consistency, and "thinker"-ness...you full of 'em all you are.

i recommend yo take these new-fangled "thinking" definitions of "self-evident" with you and travel back through the thread with how they were used and stop at the moment you put your foot in your mouth...and take it back out.
just a suggestion

[_Themis]

You are dishonest Subby. You make up what people say all the time. Either that or you are very stupid and cannot understand what people are actually saying.


If people cannot agree then is it really clear to the vision or understanding?