The wrong sort of testimony!

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

…I felt for the first time in my life complete abandonment by Heavenly Father. I cried out in desperate prayer countless times. I was doing everything I could, trying my best to follow the commandments, and my heart was humble and contrite. I could not (and still cannot) figure out why He would just not be there at all, and for such an extended period of time. I also had asked to be shown the solution to my illness or just to be shown something that would help. When that failed too many times I asked to please just feel His presence. That also failed. I know for a fact that I had enough faith to be healed. I had all the faith that it was possible for a person to have, with no doubt at all. But the healing did not come. And I felt a shocking absence of any heavenly care or love or concern of any type whatsoever.

The stories I could tell.

I’d tell myself that even Jesus experienced a “why hast thou forsaken me?” moment. It’s kind of a bummer when that moment gets stretched out over years or a lifetime. Maybe we’re all supposed to feel that way at some point when we’re attempting to wean ourselves off of god during the process of becoming an agent unto ourselves (independent).

I’ll echo the sentiment that there’s nothing wrong with your testimony. It’s you. If other people can’t handle it, that’s their problem.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, nibbler. It really helps me so much to know I’m not alone in this.

nibbler wrote:

I’d tell myself that even Jesus experienced a “why hast thou forsaken me?” moment. It’s kind of a bummer when that moment gets stretched out over years or a lifetime. Maybe we’re all supposed to feel that way at some point when we’re attempting to wean ourselves off of god during the process of becoming an agent unto ourselves (independent).

Yes, I like that explanation: that we might need to suffer alone, as Christ did, in order to learn to become agents unto ourselves. That makes total sense. But then what are we to make of D&C 19:16, “I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent”? Maybe that verse is just…wrong? Or maybe it was in reference to suffering only in the eternities? But I feel like that isn’t how it usually gets interpreted. Maybe Christ’s Atonement was to save us in the END, and not in this life? Is it too much of a downer to bring up this possibility? I don’t want to drag people down with my sincere but sometimes pessimistic-sounding perspectives. (That’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from church for the past while.)

[Anonymous]

I don’t think you can out pessimistic-sounding me, so don’t worry about that.

squarepeg wrote:

That’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from church for the past while.

It’s one of the reasons I’m very tight lipped these days. I know the feeling. Intimately.

squarepeg wrote:

But then what are we to make of D&C 19:16, “I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent”? Maybe that verse is just…wrong?

Maybe the role of god and the role of the regular folk aren’t as static as we’d like them to be. Maybe they’re more fluid, where regular folk transition in and out of the role of god and gods transition in and out of the role of regular folk. Just thoughts. I’m short on time, I guess I could pad out those thoughts later.

[Anonymous]

Two more examples come to mind of scriptures that promise us we’ll always have the Spirit.

The Sacrament Prayer says that we will always have His spirit to be with us if we take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Maybe that’s an easy one to write off as impossible since I definitely don’t remember Him always. Sometimes I’m just thinking about something else and not of Him, because if I thought of Him all the time, I couldn’t focus to help my kids with their math, couldn’t get through the grocery checkout, couldn’t make phone calls to the health insurance company about confusing bills, etc. And I break commandments all the time, every day, in spite of my best efforts to keep them. I also developed an allergy to wheat and can’t take the Sacrament bread at all anymore. But I actually don’t know of anyone who can keep the promises we make when we take the Sacrament, so maybe none of us is entitled to the attached blessings, either?

There is also John 14:18, “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.” Jesus was talking to his disciples shortly before he was killed. So maybe that applies to them, and He was talking about when he would be resurrected three days after being crucified; and we only like to think it applies to us?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Maybe the role of god and the role of the regular folk aren’t as static as we’d like them to be. Maybe they’re more fluid, where regular folk transition in and out of the role of god and gods transition in and out of the role of regular folk. Just thoughts. I’m short on time, I guess I could pad out those thoughts later.

You just blew my MIND. 😮

I’ve been reading Terryl Givens’s books (thanks to recommendations on this forum), and it seems like that’s the kind of speculative theory that could’ve been proposed by someone in Joseph Smith’s day and entertained as a real possibility. Maybe it still could. Wish I had the guts to throw this out there during a lesson.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

The Sacrament Prayer says that we will always have His spirit to be with us if we take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Maybe that’s an easy one to write off as impossible since I definitely don’t remember Him always. Sometimes I’m just thinking about something else and not of Him, because if I thought of Him all the time, I couldn’t focus to help my kids with their math, couldn’t get through the grocery checkout, couldn’t make phone calls to the health insurance company about confusing bills, etc. And I break commandments all the time, every day, in spite of my best efforts to keep them. I also developed an allergy to wheat and can’t take the Sacrament bread at all anymore. But I actually don’t know of anyone who can keep the promises we make when we take the Sacrament, so maybe none of us is entitled to the attached blessings, either?

Is that really what the prayers say? Are there “ifs” in there? I read it like this (emphasis added):

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it,

-that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father,

-that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son,

-(that they) always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them;

-that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

I don’t see that we make promises in there or that the priest saying the blessings makes any promises. I do see that the priest asks God to bless the bread (or water as the case may be, recognizing the wording is slightly different but essentially the same) to ALL THOSE who partake of it (no worthiness standard implied) that four things will happen:

1) we eat in remembrance of the body (or blood) of the Son;

2) we are willing to take the name of the Son

3) we always remember him;

4) we they may have the Spirit to be with us.

Nowhere do I see that those partaking agree to do anything, rather it appears to me to be we get blessings by partaking the sacrament as the priest is asking the Father.

I know that’s a little bit out there and definitely not the view of the mainstream and countless parrots who talk about baptismal covenants (which don’t exist IMO), but it is a literal interpretation. Take it for what it’s worth.

[Anonymous]

I do not believe the scriptures to be perfect. I believe them to be the words of mostly Godly men as they attempted to express what the religious experience was to them.

So in that vein these three scriptures that you referenced say 1) That God will comfort you, 2) The you can feel God’s spirit, and 3) That Jesus in some way sacrificed himself for your benefit. I do not see any problem with those three thoughts. But what if, in your experience, God does not comfort and His spirit is never felt and even the Jesus story leaves you feeling flat? Well, I would answer that these scriptures are from the religious experience of the writers and should not be taken as proscriptive for everyone.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Nowhere do I see that those partaking agree to do anything, rather it appears to me to be we get blessings by partaking the sacrament as the priest is asking the Father.

That’s genius. I’m going to adopt your interpretation. Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I had it in my head that the only possible interpretation was the one where we’re renewing baptismal covenants. Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible, at least, to indicate that the Last Supper (aka First Sacrament) was for the purpose of renewing baptismal covenants. But I could be wrong.

Roy wrote:

I do not believe the scriptures to be perfect. I believe them to be the words of mostly Godly men as they attempted to express what the religious experience was to them.

[…]But what if, in your experience, God does not comfort and His spirit is never felt and even the Jesus story leaves you feeling flat? Well, I would answer that these scriptures are from the religious experience of the writers and should not be taken as proscriptive for everyone.

Thank you, Roy. I’m with you on interpretation of scripture. I guess I still just like to try and make things “fit” what the majority of the church believes, where possible, if you know what I mean. I think it’s true that sometimes it can’t be done.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I interpret the Sacrament prayer almost exactly as DJ described – because I like to parse words for what they say, first, and then look at them from different angles that might appeal to me. In this case, the literal reading is the one I like the best.

My only additional comment is that the prayer asks for ALL to be blessed for what they are willing to do – NOT what they are able to do. This means the priest asks that God’s grace truly cover the difference between our hopes and our actual abilities – pointing to the belief that we really are blessed for the desires of our hearts, not for the works of our hands, so to speak.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

My only additional comment is that the prayer asks for ALL to be blessed for what they are willing to do – NOT what they are able to do. This means the priest asks that God’s grace truly cover the difference between our hopes and our actual abilities – pointing to the belief that we really are blessed for the desires of our hearts, not for the works of our hands, so to speak.

That’s a really good point, Curt, I appreciate that. It’s more on the “grace” side of things than the “works” side, which ok by me. I think “works” happen naturally when one’s “grace” side is well tended.

[Author]

Posts