I agree this is true for the vast majority of dreams. However the scriptures make it clear that some dreams are indeed visions that are directly from God. I have posted on some of my own personal experiences with this form of revelation in the past. I will address it further in my post tonight.

I’m still quite uncomfortable with how close you put dreams and visions together. Truman Madsen interprets Joseph Smith as making a clear distinction between the two when he (Joseph) said “the Lord showed me in broad day light…” TM commented on this by saying that it was not something which he conjured up in the dreams of the night. I agree with this. Dreams originate within myself and usually mean absolutely nothing, though it is very easy to attribute meaning to them. Visions come from a source which is obviously outside the prophet. It can be witnessed by two people at once, unlike a dream. There being two witnesses is a VERY important feature which virtually assures the source to be outside the recipient. Dreams simply do not allow for this.

Your new list is an interesting one. I can agree that you either hear words or not idea too. The question is whether these experiences occur in a waking-dream/trance state or not. (But even in dream revelations you can hear words, see sights, and have physical contact.)

So with that behind us we an get back to addressing some of the original questions. I’ll start by replying over at the other thread.

Which assumptions are you talking about? That visions are strictly physical has nothing to do with the conclusions which I reach. Indeed, I am perfectly confortable, though still not convinced, with a spiritual out of body sort of revelation as you advocate. Are there any other assumptions you are disagreeing with, because I’m just not seeing it? What is it about my paper that you disagree with specifically? So you disagree with the physicality? Fine, go without it since its not required. What else?

“There is, however, no line where suddenly we leave the inner communication path and jarringly shift into a purely physical realm of communication.”

I agree with this. The inner commuication never ceases, even in these physical events. With each higher level comes and added, not a substituted medium of communication. Perhaps it would be better if I re-wrote my list as follows:

1) emotions.
2) emotions and hunches.
3) dreams.
4) emotion, hunches and words in the mind.
5) emotions, hunches and words in the ears.
6) emotions, hunches, words in the ears and sights in the eyes.
7) emotions, hunches, words in the ears, sights in the eyes and actual physical contact (even if its not really “physical” in your sense).

Now either you hear words in your ears or you don’t. There is no grey area. Either you see something or you don’t with your eyes. Either you touch something or you don’t. There is lot’s of grey with regards to emotions and hunches, but these other mediums of communication are fairly black and white. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM SO GOOD. There is no wishy-washiness about it. Either you experienced it or you didn’t. This is how the placeboes and wishful thinking are cut out of the equation, by getting rid of all grey.

I completely agree that hunches and feelings are not sufficient. Where we part is the next step beyond that. I believe that hunches and feelings are the first tiny steps down the path that leads to open visions and visitations. There is, however, no line where suddenly we leave the inner communication path and jarringly shift into a purely physical realm of communication. I believe it is all further down the same path as the eyes and ears of our understanding see and hear more clearly and we receive actual detailed intelligence from on high.

We can continue to debate this subject in the other thread though.

This is a big problem, because such reasoning protect everybody including the crazies. It is precisely because the reasoning is circular that we can’t be 100% sure.

I’m not sure I would call those things “excuses.” (I hope I didn’t say that about all inspiration!)

“true revelation feels “revelationy”"

Just feeling that you are receiving revelation isn’t enough. You need to be able to tell what the reevelation was. Like Joseph Smith said:
“Hence the Methodists, Presbyterians, and others frequently possess a spirit that… they consider… to be the power of God, and a glorious manifestation from God-a manifestation of what? Is there any intelligence communicated? Are the curtains of heaven withdrawn, or the purposes of God developed? Have they seen and conversed with an angel-or have the glories of futurity burst upon their view? No! … All the intelligence that can be obtained from them when they arise, is a shout of “glory,” or “hallelujah,” or some incoherent expression; but they have had “the power.” (TPJS 203)

This is the problem with inspiration. We don’t get much more out of it than this.

“I would think you would agree with this considering your feelings about Blake’s modern expansion theory.”

I would agree with this analysis with regards to #4 but not #5. Remember, we left #4 behind recognizing that it could be anywhere between #2 and #5 but not bringing those two any closer to one another. Unless you can somehow equate those two, then my point still stands.

Yes it is very circular. That is why I fear we are reaching an impasse.

How did God tell you?

I have often heard and felt his voice in my mind and heart. I have felt the burning in the bosom. He has spoke peace to my mind. All of the classic scriptural definitions. You call those “excuses” but God apparently disagrees (else He would not have described them that way in scripture).

Maybe I am proving your point because it is all revelation to me.

Thus everybody has experienced it to some degree and can therefore have it described to them.

Ok, I’ll grant that. So like salt tastes salty, true revelation feels “revelationy”

Are you really willing to say that everybody’s inspiration which doesn’t agree with your is wrong since you are 100% sure of yours? This seems a little arrogant.

Yeah, it does sound a little arrogant, huh? Oh well. Facts are facts. And I never said I am 100% sure of all of the promptings I have received — just some. I know the difference.

I should remind you that such accusations of arrogance are one of the reasons most of us don’t openly talk about the fact that we receive revelation. (I mentioned this in my recent post)

Regarding the placebo thing — I agree with you that lots of people mistake that for revelation. My only concern though is my revelation. I go to great lengths to receive the real thing. Perhaps you doubt I really get real revelation but all I can do is tell you about it and invite you to go get your own.

unless you are willing to discredit these words and sights altogether, they will forever separate thes two from 1 and 2

I am ready to discount words. I think God gives ideas and then we and prophets describe those truths and concepts in our own words. I would think you would agree with this considering your feelings about Blake’s modern expansion theory. If you insist that actual words are placed in the minds of prophets then your theory is not significantly different than the “tickertape across the seer stone” theory of translation of the BoM.

I don’t discount sights because dreams and visions (in that waking-dream state) are, by definition, sights.

surely you know that they raised you more than you know that something was God.

Nope. But this discussion is happening over at that other post.

“They are wrong while we are right”? That is what every church believes. Can’t we do better? Yes, we can by claims of revelation rather than mere inspiration.

I am claiming revelation. I just think you misunderstand what revelation is.

“I think that I get my own revelation right because God tells me so.”

This doesn’t seem a little circular to you? How did God tell you? Through more inspiration that might be misinterpreted? Or was there revelation given to clear things up, thus proving my point? The fact is that I feel that I received lots of inspiration writing my Revelation vs. Inspiration paper. Imagine that, I interpret my inspiration as meaning that we can’t trust inspiration 100%! Nevertheless, church as well as world history would seem to validate this position. Either way, one of us has received or interpreted inspiration incorrectly. Again, this is according to my view of it, not yours. Are you really willing to say that everybody’s inspiration which doesn’t agree with your is wrong since you are 100% sure of yours? This seems a little arrogant.

I agree with your views of the psychic network. Their communications are probably not divine in any meaningful sense. But wait! They are claiming their visions to be non-physical! Who’s position is that? The more “inward” an experience is the less reliable it is. The psychic network is proof of that. That said, I don’t claim actual physical visions to be invariably wrong either. The devil, we are told, can appear as an angel of light (hence sec. 129). Not only that, but people really to halucinate. My point is, however, that we can write off inward experiences which are not very compelling as being “placeboes” or figments of the imagination. The outward experiences reduce the possibilities by forcing us to grant supernatural intervention or flat out lunacy. I personally think the psychic network is part fraudulent, part lunacy and lots and lots of “placeboes.”

I simply don’t see how you can accept 7 while rejecting 4,5 and 6. This seems a little determined. I should also mention that you again are ignoring the importance of words and sights. In 1 and 2 there are no words or sights received. In 5 and 6 there are. You can redefine these two however you want, but unless you are willing to discredit these words and sights altogether, they will forever separate thes two from 1 and 2. Words and sights help. Communication which don’t have them are less clear and therefore less reliable than those that do. That is the whole point of my paper. This is where you should aim your critiques, for if words and sights don’t help (and this would be VERY difficult to show) then you are right. If not, then I am.

You may not be able to describe the experience itself (I did grant this in my paper) but they can certainly describe what it is like and how it was different from other experiences. If somebody had never tasted plain salt I could say that it tastes just like sweat although it is a quite a bit more intense than that. If somebody had never tasted sugar plain I could describe it as tasting like frosted flakes but without the grainy taste and texture that goes with it. It tastes a little like nutrisweet or really sweet fruit. Are we really willing to say that there are people who have never experienced inspiration of any kind? Thus everybody has experienced it to some degree and can therefore have it described to them.

You might know God better than you know that your parents are you biological parents, but surely you know that they raised you more than you know that something was God.

“I know better than any other facts in this life.”

There are no degrees of knowing. There are of conviction, but not of knowing. And the scriptures, philosophers and common sense tell us that we have not received a perfect knowledge in the strictest sense without actual physical experience.

I agree that sec. 50 does say what you use it to mean. However I interpret it as being a little exaggerated since it contradicts the plain facts of experience. Thus we can distrust our experiences (in which case everything is to the wind since we only know God through experience) or we can accept a modified version of that passage. I choose the latter.

I have issues with the “one true church” claim, having concluded that it doesn’t really amount to a claim of anything at all. Truth with regards to churches is not a dichotomy. There are varying degrees of it. Some churches contain more errors than others, our, I believe, containing the fewest errors (though they are certainly there). Thus other churches are also true, just not as true. They are not as true because they have been guided by inspiration rather than revelation, inspiration not being good enough. This is also in my paper. This is also why I am so worried about the churches lack of modern revelation.

“God was not the source of that revelation.”

How can you ever say that about somebody else’s experience? “They are wrong while we are right”? That is what every church believes. Can’t we do better? Yes, we can by claims of revelation rather than mere inspiration.

“Why wouldn’t this also apply to Mormons, even our leaders?

It does.”

So are you admitting that inspiration is not 100% sure after all?

Jeffrey: this is without doubt the biggest straw man I have ever seen.

HAH! Classic. I’m flattered. Still I think it might be a case of me misjudging the intent of your previous comment rather than intentionally creating the biggest straw man you have ever seen…

My point was that some promptings given to people are obviously false, despite their 100% surety. What makes us think that we are any better than them?

When you say “given to people” what do you mean? If promptings are from God they are not false. If they are from the devil they are. If they are self-generated they are not “given” to them… So lots people make stuff up and mishear revelation. But other people’s bad spiritual ears are not really my problem. I think that I get my own revelation right because God tells me so. Don’t take my word for it though, go ask him yourself. If you don’t think he will answer you then we are at an impasse. All I can do is testify that he will answer you and that he does answer me.

I am claiming that visions are better because they will tend to be invalid or false less often than is inspiration.

Obviously you are not watching enough of the psychic network… As I said in the other post, visions are given in the same place prompting are given — in the mind’s eye or by the opening of the eyes of our understanding. If you have evidence to refute that I’ll look for it at that post.

your analogy doesn’t accomplish much of anything by way of showing that 1 and 2 are just as “high” or clear as 5,6 or 7.

Based on my “in the body post” it should be no surprise to you that I think your 4-6 as you have defined them are non-existent. (Your #7 is supported by scripture, of course). Your 1-3 are fine but everything beyond that would fall into the mind’s-eye or trance or waking dream category. The information is given directly to the mind by God through the Spirit. He does not have to go through the bottleneck of our mortal bodies (eyes, ears, etc) to communicate with us. He talks directly to our souls as if we had no body at all (TPJS p.355)

The word game which is being played in the salt analogy

Salty or sweet — the wordplay is irrelevant to the analogy. The point is that if one had never tasted anything sweet or sugary before, another person could not adequately describe the what it really tastes like. It must be experienced at least once first. So it is with revelation.

Now when you have your mouth “filled” do you really know it was God, or do you have faith that it was?

This “what you know” vs. faith thing is a pet peeve of mine. I posted on it some time ago. I recommend you check it out. I concluded that I know the things I learn from God better than I know who my parents are or siblings or better than I know my own name. Why? Because I could potentially be the victim of some giant conspiracy or cover up (no matter how ridiculous that is). God has never told me otherwise. But he has told me some things and those things are the things I know better than any other facts in this life.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of sec. 50. Even if that’s what it says…

Ha! Uhhhh, ok… We can disagree on that point (even if that is what it says…) ;-)

I find it very difficult to believe, finding such a notion to be arrogant and self-righteous in the extremem, that other christians who have been practicing their entire lives don’t get their prayers answered in their emotions and hunches just as well as we do.

Oh good grief! If you find that arrogant, I have bad news for you. We have scriptures that say ours is the only true church and that the creeds of all those other churches are an abomination in the sight of God.

They prayed to find out if the BoM was true and got an answer of “no.” What gives?

God was not the source of that revelation, that’s what gives. But don’t take my word for it — go ask him about that yourself.

Why wouldn’t this also apply to Mormons, even our leaders?

It does. That is why we need constant revelatory dialogue with God to stay on the right paths personally.