- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I would rather live a hell than have a heaven that requires me to suspend my reasoning and better judgment!
I agree – and it actually is one of the main reasons I love “pure Mormonism”. It actually is about the only thing that satisfies me intellectually and spiritually. (Some aspects of Buddhism satisfy me in a similar way – especially if I overlook the implementation of it by lots of believers.)
We, the people, including Prophets and apostles, have done a number on “pure Mormonism” over the years (causing the vineyard to need pruning) – but I really, really love it. One of the primary reasons is that I don’t have to suspend my reasoning and better judgment – even if it does require a large dose of faith. In the end, however, it really doesn’t require any more faith than any other religion that posits a post-mortal existence – and especially Christianity as an over-arching theological framework. It’s really not any more illogical than anything else I might want to believe, so the grandeur of its pure form still amazes me on a regular basis.
I agree Eu and Ray, great discussion! Regarding the idea of peer review and tests to check spiritual ideas — that doesn’t really fit with my personal paradigm of spirituality, it’s kind of like — how are you going to critique peace, or how are you going to judge the effectiveness of a personal example? To me spiritual manifestations can be contradictory because people are living different lives with different needs, and what is right for one person may be wrong for someone else. No, I don’t think people always read their spiritual “cues” perfectly – obviously, humans are notorious for making mistakes. Often BIG mistakes. Obviously I agree with your last paragraph Eu, I see spirituality as largely an individual concern. Yes, groups of people come together and learn to express their personal truths and values in the same language – and share common stories. In this way they express the truths they find personally as something bigger than applies to only themselves. To me the key in not getting frustrated with particular language sounding too universalistic (regarding truth, implying a physicality) is in understanding at the heart of it they are expressing something deeply personal — and how they express it says more about what it means to them than the verifiable physicality of it. And who really knows about the things that we can’t test or verify physically? To me that’s the real beauty of belief, and what it can do for people in their lives.
Orson wrote:I agree Eu and Ray, great discussion! Regarding the idea of peer review and tests to check spiritual ideas — that doesn’t really fit with my personal paradigm of spirituality, it’s kind of like — how are you going to critique peace, or how are you going to judge the effectiveness of a personal example? To me spiritual manifestations can be contradictory because people are living different lives with different needs, and what is right for one person may be wrong for someone else. No, I don’t think people always read their spiritual “cues” perfectly – obviously, humans are notorious for making mistakes. Often BIG mistakes.
Absolutely. I agree completely. I was referring to those who use their spiritual manifestations as evidence for claiming more objective absolute truths. This is exactly why I prefer that spirituality be a personal adventure. Well said!Yes, to me using spiritual manifestations as a guide to absolute, universal, physical truths makes as much sense as saying: “Everyone, (no matter where you are in the world) the way to library is to turn right out of your driveway, take the second left, drive five miles and turn right…” Intellectual tendencies only interfere with some(but not all) forms of spirituality — perhaps it tears apart forms of spirituality (sentimentalism like Hawk said) that we SHOULD root out of ourselves or dispel. Pure and exclusive belief in materialism might interfere with the spiritual, but not intellectualism or rational thought per se. Since God made me this way, as someone who thinks about all this a lot and likes to tear it all apart to see how it ticks, I should fill the measure of my divine creation
😈 Quote:“Intellectual tendencies only interfere with some (but not all) forms of spirituality — perhaps it tears apart forms of spirituality (sentimentalism like Hawk said) that we SHOULD root out of ourselves or dispel. Pure and exclusive belief in materialism might interfere with the spiritual, but not intellectualism or rational thought per se.”
How are you using the terms “Intellectual” or “intellectual tendencies”.
Konvert Kid wrote:How are you using the terms “Intellectual” or “intellectual tendencies”.
I would define an intellectual as someone who actively develops their mind through the pursuit of knowledge. Going back to Socrates, it was defined as the pursuit of virtue, since one needs to know or become more aware of “the good” in order to be more virtuous. I also like other views of intellectualism over the ages that certainly included spiritual thought. And I also like the views of today which incorporate an appreciation of science and technology.
I don’t think that being an intellectual is synonymous only with being a materialist. A materialist can be an intellectual, but not all intellectuals have to be materialist.
James Talmage was an intellectual IMO, even though his significant works were mostly in the realm of the spiritual. He was also a scientist.
What is the difference between spirituality and sentimentalism? I don’t understand the latter term as it applies to gospel matters. My own overly short and simplistic answer, SD, is that spirituality assumes the existence of something outside ourselves into which we can tap (or that can communicate with us in some way), while sentimentalism is nothing more than the manipulation of emotions that are common to all – except psychopaths who are the exception that prove the rule. Another term that is used interchangeably by many for sentimentalism is emotionalism. The difficulty in religion is that the latter (sentimentalism) can be used (intentionally OR unintentionally, with good OR evil intentions, toward positive OR negative goals, with wonderful OR terrible results, etc.) to approximate the former (spirituality). It happens in the LDS Church regularly, but not one bit more than in any other religion. Perhaps the best example is the idea among lots of people that tears are a result of an encounter with the spirit – or, to be more precise, that if you cry in church it is because you have “felt the Spirit”. I’m not rejecting that as a real manifestation of real spiritual experiences for many people; I’m saying it’s easy for someone who knows how to do so to cause tears, as evidenced by Hollywood and the music industry. For me, the distinction between spiritualism and sentimentalism in those cases when tears are flowing is less about the tears and more about the cause of the tears – and the lesson learned through the experience.
I don’t like to draw a bright line between the two and label one as bad and the other as good, since I don’t think it’s easy (or even possible for lots of people, including myself) to understand perfectly what is a result of exposure to an outside “spirit” and what is completely internal. I also am not convinced that something that is entirely internal must be sentimental and not spiritual. Personally, I think nearly all of the grand visions of our scriptural canon might have been completely internal (visions, not visitations) – but I am totally fine with them being spiritual and not merely sentimental. I say that mostly because of my own experiences.
I’ve had a few experiences that I personally believe to have been “pure spiritualism” generated by a contact with something outside myself (not just natural reactions totally from within or caused by other people), but, by and large, the vast majority of my spiritual experiences really could be analyzed by someone else and deemed to be nothing more than my natural emotions being magnified or manipulated in some way that is not “spiritual”. I believe there is a “Spirit of God” (whatever that means), and I believe there is a God (whom I describe as a Father), so I choose to believe that I have had spiritual experiences – even as I recognize that some of them might have been nothing more than emotional reactions to powerful stimuli. In fact, one of the most powerful “spiritual” experiences of my life came about through a series of events that I know many others (including some here) would see as nothing more than contrived manipulation (NOT by the Church) – but I believe it was spiritual not sentimental more because of what it taught me (the lesson I took away from it) than because of the exact nature of the experience.
I hope that helps a little.
:: golf clap :: Brilliant Ray. The whole thing, absolutely perfect! The beauty of this explanation is that although I might fall on a different side of the coin when interpreting the meaning of my spiritual experiences, I can completely agree with everything Ray said and afford him the opportunity to decide where he falls on interpreting his spiritual experiences. There is both validation of the views and choices of others, while allowing freedom to make that choice without condemnation.
Very well said!
I would add to this that we ought to give the same kind of validation for those who express their “emotionalism” in the form of anger and/or resentment at the church. Just as with tears we may not accept that this is a necessary condition for spirituality, but we can examine the lesson learned through the experience. In that light, we might view anger as another “spiritual” opportunity for learning. Of course to most LDS that would not jive with our understanding of the manifestations of the Spirit. But I still think it’s valid.
Old-Timer wrote:My own overly short and simplistic answer, SD, is that spirituality assumes the existence of something outside ourselves into which we can tap (or that can communicate with us in some way), while sentimentalism is nothing more than the manipulation of emotions that are common to all – except psychopaths who are the exception that prove the rule. Another term that is used interchangeably by many for sentimentalism is emotionalism.
Yes, this helps. However, you have me questioning something. I’ve been told by many people throughout my whole life I have the gift of teaching. When I was called to an adult Sunday SChool position recently, the Spirit manifested itself many times in my lessons, with the people in the room experiencing outward symptoms of what I thought was spirituality. I go home feeling swept and clean inside, as if my Spirit is cleansed.
When preparing a lesson, I will often reflect on a passage and then think of something touching related to it, until I get that feeling of warmth in my heart and sometimes, a welling of tears. This, to me, is evidence that the idea should be included in my lesson.
Here is one example. I was teaching about the atonement, and there was one statement. “The fact that God sent HIs Son is evidence of His Love for us”. As I reflected on this passage, the thought came to me about one of my children. She is very good. She has a good heart, considers adult ethical questions even though she’s not even a teenager yet. She WANTS to do the right thing, for its own sake, in many situations. The thought that I would send HER to suffer for the sins of others, would mean I must have some hugely greater good in mind. And the thought of doing so, with it’s implied love for others, as well as the sheer injustice of someone so pure, suffering so willingly for others, is inherently touching.
Many in the class know my daughter and many have commented on her goodness at different times. They say she has a good heart and seem to love her.
I saw the class react to my story when I told it.. As I shared the scenario, I felt this overwhelming feeling of warmth inside. My eyes sometimes get red, and occasionally, tears flow, but I have full control over the pitch, tone and rate of my voice. People often react in kind, and I can see them rivetted on my words with engaged eye contact, responding sometimes with tears themselves, and then afterwards, thanking me for the Spirit they felt. The room gets thick with warmth that I believe is the Spirit.
Is this emotionalism, or spirituality? Is it that I’ve learned to identify emotionally charged situations that relate to the gospel, and that is the source of my perceived gift by others? Or, are you implying that we simply don’t know whether it’s the blessing of my words by God, or an inducement of emotion by the fabric of my stories and scenarios?
My own take is that you probably do have a gift to help people FEEL something wonderful and good. Part of the reason I am such a good public speaker is that I share that gift when I speak – much more so than when I write. I don’t study public speaking and hone that gift consciously, but it is there. Is it tapping into a spiritual force? Probably, given how you’ve described it – but maybe not. Is it purely sentimentalism / emotionalism? Maybe, but I don’t think so, given how you’ve described it – and I really don’t care. It “inviteth to do good” (without hidden agenda) – and I am ok with that measuring stick.
Literally everything we do that involves others – everything that is interpersonal to any degree – could be labeled “manipulation” by someone – and that label would be totally correct according to someone’s definition of the term.
If you are interested, I wrote something on my personal blog entitled “Not Everything Is Manipulation”. It can be accessed at the following link: (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-everything-is-manipulation.html Old-Timer wrote:Is it tapping into a spiritual force? Probably, given how you’ve described it – but maybe not. Is it purely sentimentalism / emotionalism? Maybe, but I don’t think so, given how you’ve described it – and I really don’t care. It “inviteth to do good” (without hidden agenda) – and I am ok with that measuring stick.
I like that measuring stick, Ray. Well said.I think there is also an element of integrity also. Like Ray, “I don’t really care” too much about what others call it (emotional or spiritual), if it leads to good things for me…but there is a line of manipulation that can ruin the method of delivery, even if well intended. Paul H Dunn was an example in my opinion.
Keep it honest and truthful to you, and your class will benefit it. If you are trying to make every moment of every class time an earth-shattering spiritual experience, you may be pushing for the eccentric, and forgetting the spirit mostly speaks in the soft still voice in a humble testimony.
One principle of effective teaching is ‘pure motives’. I’ve experienced how you can let positive teaching experiences turn into desires for future complements and respect from others. And when I feel that tendency coming on, it’s time to give the credit to the Lord, and to refocus on the needs of the people in front of you. It’s one of the temptations of Christ when Satan tempted him — the desire for fame and power. You have to check it or the Spirit withdraws and you’re left to your own abilities and nothing more.
It’s another one of life’s paradoxes — you get power when you stop wanting it and focus on the needs of others. And whent the power comes, you have to reject it as something you own; otherwise it leaves. You only get it when you stop wanting it for yourself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.