- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Nephite wrote:
Yes for me. I have had experiences that make it obvious to me that the Holy Ghost is real. I have had feelings that are totally different from any emotion or drug reaction cause by the brain. It is the Holy Ghost.
wayfarer, please let me know if I am not clear on this – I understand that you see the Holy Ghost as an emotion/instinct/feeling/inner voice somewhere deep in the mind that connects us to people and things and can help guide us to all truth.
I question if that much leeway is really intended when a TR interview is conducted. While it is not explicitly asked if one adheres to the specific LDS definition of the Holy Ghost, I think it’s implied that one should at least believe that the Holy Ghost is a personage who is a member of the Godhead. We can apply a label to any belief we have, but does the belief fit what is really being asked? Please know that I don’t disrespect your view.
I am so glad you asked. This is the type of exploration we need to do on this thread.I think you have captured my point of view accurately. Let me take your words and be precise in my meaning:
Whether or not the Holy Ghost is the third member of the godhead does not matter to me. I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. It’s unknowable. What I do know is that there is an ’emotion/instinct/feeling/inner voice somewhere deep in the mind that connects us to people and things and can help guide us to all truth’. I have come to refer to that emotion/instinct/feeling/inner voice as the “holy spirit”. Even if there were a third member of the Godhead, a personage of spirit as it were, the final interface with me is exactly the same as the emotion/instinct/feeling/inner voice you mentioned. Thus, I can testify with all honesty that the holy spirit is quite real and tangible for me.
This is not simply a mental game for me. It is absolutely what I believe with all my heart and soul. that emotion/instinct/feeling/inner voice is what I believe to be my divine nature — the god within me. But the conscious me is not always aligned with this inner voice and spirit. the entire point of worship, prayer, meditation, and practice of spiritual discipline (of which religion is an optional subset) is to align my consciousness with my divine nature. In the moments I achieve that alignment, that balance, then I am able to perceive that which needs to be done in harmony with all that is. In that moment, the unified conscious/nonconscious mind is god, is indistinguishable from god, and is the Christ: the moment of enlightenment is the moment we are one with god by virtue of the holy spirit, and can fully say “I AM”.
While what I have said above would seem completely out of kilter from the Standard Definition of God/Godhead (SDOG), the reality is that nothing of what I have said above is inconsistent with LDS scripture — It’s all there. When I teach the godhead in the church, I use terms aligned with the SDOG, because that’s the beginning of the understanding of god. It’s a symbol, a metaphor, of something far beyond words. We teach the words, but the spirit teaches the truth.
@Wayfarer I like your 4 categorizations. I can actually respect why very reasonable, smart people could be in any of the 4.
I also think Nephite did a great job of explaining the point I was trying to make in my initial list that you have to make a choice to use your personal interpretation based on your personal meaning/spirituality or to base it on what you think the intent of the church is.
To be able to choose a personal interpretation of that of the church is a big thing for 2 reasons I think:
1) You essentially have to say “pooh” on the church having the authority to determine your relationship with God. For many TBMs this separation does not exist.
2) There is some sense of dishonesty where you are technically telling the truth as you understand it, but you know that you are bypassing the church’s gate-keeping structure. At least there was some level of discomfort for me personally – I’m not trying to judge anyone else and call them dishonest – just express how it felt to me.
Having chosen #4 to me, in retrospect #3 definitely seems like “gymnastics” although that’s not how I would have thought of it at the time. (Also I’m not trying to call #4 superior – just describe the different perspective.) In any case it takes a lot less “mental work”. However, there are definitely disadvantages as well – I definitely feel more isolated from the TBM world in which I live and sometimes it is lonely and sometimes I miss it being the other way.
bc_pg wrote:To be able to choose a personal interpretation of that of the church is a big thing for 2 reasons I think:
1) You essentially have to say “pooh” on the church having the authority to determine your relationship with God. For many TBMs this separation does not exist.
I say “pooh”. No, not quite. I say “POOH” to the church having any authority to determine my relationship with God. I passed that point years ago — nothing is deeper in my soul.bc_pg wrote:2) There is some sense of dishonesty where you are technically telling the truth as you understand it, but you know that you are bypassing the church’s gate-keeping structure. At least there was some level of discomfort for me personally – I’m not trying to judge anyone else and call them dishonest – just express how it felt to me.
The intent of the TR interview process is to assess ‘worthiness’ and to ensure that specific apostate groups do not have access to the temple. Part of that assessment is ‘self-assessment’, which we’ll see is summarized in the last question.The church doesn’t want people teaching for doctrine their own opinions in classes, so to some extent you are correct, there is a gate-keeping step here. Understanding clearly that this is the rule of the game, I don’t teach my opinions in classes, I teach the subset of correlated doctrine and my personal beliefs. In some cases, that makes teaching or speaking on certain subjects untenable, so I willingly have taken a calling as choir director, where my beliefs are infused in my selection of spiritually uplifting music that fits the subset of between what I believe and what the church teaches.
There is no subterfuge here. it is in fact a scriptural mandate:
Alma 12:9-10 wrote:…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.
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.
I believe, firmly, that the blind acceptance of the correlated tree of knowledge of good and evil causes many true believing members to receive only a lesser portion of the word. How else can you explain the true believer’s unwillingness to face truth even if something is painfully true? It’s all about the hardening of the hearts, and there’s nothing we can do about it.bc_pg wrote:Having chosen #4 to me, in retrospect #3 definitely seems like “gymnastics” although that’s not how I would have thought of it at the time. (Also I’m not trying to call #4 superior – just describe the different perspective.) In any case it takes a lot less “mental work”. However, there are definitely disadvantages as well – I definitely feel more isolated from the TBM world in which I live and sometimes it is lonely and sometimes I miss it being the other way.
Exactly. It’s too damn lonely to reject the church in its entirety. I’ve been there. That’s why I came back…not to put the toothpaste back into the tube, but frankly, because community is really important.Yes. SilentDawning wrote:I find the Holy Ghost easier to believe in than God or Jesus. The Holy Ghost is the most tangible evidence I’ve ever had of something supernatural that works in my life.
Well said…
Positive energy…..spiritually….intuition…..
They do not ask if you have faith the HG is a personage. I guess if they decide that is important for “exhalation” they will change the TR question.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I gotta say I’m not a fan of this loose interpretation. In my opinion, it’s quite obvious that the question “Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?” means “Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father (a real Father in Heaven, not a concept in your own mind), His Son Jesus Christ (the Son of God who came to earth who is the Savior, not a concept or representation of an enlightened man}, and the Holy Ghost (a personage who is the third member of the Godhead)?” That’s very, very basic stuff. Of course, the question is not asked like that and no follow-up questions are asked. I do, however, think that one should be able to describe a belief in each member of the Godhead in a way close to what the basic teachings of the church are if a follow-up question was asked.
To provide an extreme example, one could say “Yes, I believe in Heavenly Father” while thinking that the tree in his backyard is Heavenly Father, if we are free to interpret it so loosely.
Nephite wrote:..
To provide an extreme example, one could say “Yes, I believe in Heavenly Father” while thinking that the tree in his backyard is Heavenly Father, if we are free to interpret it so loosely.
Hey, don’t be dissin on us neopagans.
I think nephite, that you have expressed why many traditional believers have a problem with NOMish members and see them as a threat to the church.
I understand your concern. I haven’t been to the temple since 1998..out of respect for members like you. I have had a TR off and on during that time.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I want to meet this tree of your’s. It must be awesome! wayfarer wrote:I am quite certain that no-one in the LDS church or anywhere else knows who the Holy Ghost is. There is no coherent definition of the ‘being’ of the holy ghost, or even what special powers the ‘gift of the holy ghost’ conveys that is unique to confirmed members of the church.
…As we become enlightened, that sense of instinct can be tuned to help guide us to all truth. I have faith in and a testimony of this inner voice. I have come to call it the Holy Ghost.
+1. This is how I feel, Wayfarer just words it so well…so I copy his words and say, “Ya…me too!”:thumbup: By far, this member of the Godhead is the least understood…and I guess is appropriately named the “ghost”. I do not have to
fullyunderstand it to have a testimony of it. And so, Yes, I do. I understand your hesitance, Nephite, but I also need to be clear that we’re exploring different possibilities of what we believe and why we can say Yes or need to say No to the question. I hope that in your answer, you’re expressing what you believe rather than criticizing what others believe. That is why I’m doing this thread — and yes, your opinion of your own belief matters a great deal. When I am in a church setting, I have no problem talking about Father in Heaven in the traditional manner. In fact, I believe that is the correct thing to do. Symbolically, god is my father, the source of my life — I have no issue with that. Is he an exalted man? I simply don’t know. He may be. He may not be. It is one of the things that are unknowable, nor is required for me to live a full and authentic life to make a claim on the unknowable as if it were true.
The concept of what God, Son, and HG meant to Joseph Smith morphed considerable during his life. As well, we know that Brigham Young had a variant opinion of what consisted the godhead. Correlation creates a baseline of “what is taught” in the church, so one of the many definitions of the godhead that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught has been standardized into LDS correlated doctrine. These are the facts. They aren’t very convenient facts, to those that insist that ‘doctrine’ never changes, because it did.
There is a very good reason for correlated doctrine, and the explicit agreement to teach correlated doctrine. “What is taught” needs to be consistent and agreed upon by all saints. Otherwise, we’ll keep arguing over what God is, what Jesus Christ is, all that stuff. “What is taught” is correlated, easy to understand, uncontroversial doctrine. It edifies. It uplifts. It doesn’t raise questions. People go home after church and they’re happy — mission accomplished.
But the moment you start analyzing correlated doctrine in detail, you’re going to find profound logical flaws. God cannot be unchangeable from everlasting to everlasting and yet have been once like us. God cannot be a corporeal presence, inseparably connected between body and spirit, and be everywhere at the same time: omnipresent. God cannot be simultaneously all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and then allow bad things to happen to those who are innocent of any ‘choice’ that caused the bad things to happen. One of the three omni-‘s needs to fail. These are logical impossibilities. Yet we teach them.
As I noted above, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Mysteries of God are available to those who ponder them, but they are not to be taught in the church setting. Alma 12:9 is clear that there is a “portion of his word that he doth grant unto the children of men”. Correlated doctrine as taught in the official materials of the church is exactly that: the portion of the word granted to men.
It is my firm belief that disaffection forces a person to seek clarity from the lord a bit of further light and knowledge to sort out the disaffection. I did this 20 years ago, and it has taken a daily journey ever since then to get where I am today. Where am I? I’m merely a wayfaring fool. I have come to rely entirely on the Way as I understand it, and it has taken me to some amazing places. Yet I fail, day by day, to fully realize myself. Full of defects, I have come to rely upon grace entirely to make it through each day. I no longer have doubts. I either know something is true or false, or I don’t know something. Sure, sometimes I’m deluded — maybe a lot. But in the end, I have come to understand the voice inside my head and the power of god that lies within. And when I listen with my entire being, I cannot describe the joy and wonder of what I have seen.
This is not an insight I can share with others — you won’t believe me. and that’s not important. The reason I’m talking about this here is because this is my faith in and testimony of the holy ghost. It’s very real to me. And as such I answer the questions affirmatively. As well, I understand “what is taught” is but a shadow of the reality I have come to understand. And that’s entirely ok.
I also am totally fine teaching the current doctrine of the Church at church – but even within that more narrow defintion there is LOTS of room for individual understanding and edification. Fwiw, I can answer the honesty question with a totally clear conscience – including the interview up to that point. I don’t lie to or try to decieve anyone. In that specific setting, however, not sharing all of the CONTENT of my beliefs is not being dishonest or deceitful. It’s just answering the question as I personally understand it.
I have a testimony that the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead who gives me a knowledge of the truth and is a Comforter. Shawn wrote:I have a testimony that the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead who gives me a knowledge of the truth and is a Comforter.
That certainly works too.
doug wrote:At this point, I’m usually thinking “Sure. Why not?”, which comes out as “Yes”.
This quote totally captured my feelings on the subject. Over the course of the weekend I have had the opportunity to read the other responses, ponder, analyse and attempt to put into words what I do believe. I am grateful for this invitation to form an affirmative belief.wayfarer wrote:I am quite certain that no-one in the LDS church or anywhere else knows who the Holy Ghost is. There is no coherent definition of the ‘being’ of the Holy Ghost, or even what special powers the ‘gift of the holy ghost’ conveys that is unique to confirmed members of the church.
The Holy Ghost is an ambiguous character. The bible has him appearing in the form of a dove. Lectures on Faith describes him as the shared mind of the Father and the Son. Js said that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit in order that he may dwell in our hearts. JFS said that the HG as a spirit personage only occupies a specific place at a time and is only Omni-present by influence through the “network” of the light of Christ. Where does the HG come from? Is he a child of HF? Will he ever get a body? – We have been instructed not to venture into this speculative realm.
I’ve read others descriptions of the HG as a synonym for any divine communication. If that is true, then I suppose I have a testimony of it for I have felt my Father’s love in a powerful and “peace I give unto you” way.
Sort of like a light bulb – I can see the light and feel the heat even when I can’t explain how it works.
But my experience with the spirit “working” has been inconsistent. Like trying to hold mist in my hand – just when I think I’ve boxed it in, it evades me. It seems to work at some times when all the “rules” say it should not. Other times when all of the optimal conditions have been met – the heavens are as brass.
Trying to nail down the HG frustrates me and is the opposite of the peace I believe He is charged to deliver. In all the swirling details – I fail to see the forest for all the trees.
So once again I retreat back (or zoom out) to the model of the Trinity. Where things are kinda blurry and blend together. I do not think that the Trinity is a correct (or more correct) model of the anatomy of the Godhead. I find it useful precisely because of its broad general brush strokes and hazy details.
Borrowing from my analogy of the light bulb, when I see and feel the light, I may know that it is good and that it is of God. It doesn’t much matter if God is sending me light through an aspect of Himself called the “Comforter” or if the light is reflected off of a separate celestial HG body before being defused through the light of Christ on its journey to my heart and mind. I choose to focus on the source of the light, who I believe to be my Heavenly Father.
It is that my Father communicates His love for me that matters – the relationship that exists between us. What does the role of the “Comforter” tell me about my Father and His dealings with His children?
The model of the Trinity fits well with my desire to focus on relationship over mechanics.
I almost voted no on this. If there was a third option that said Maybe I would have chosen that one.With Maybe the there is some faith so I suppose even with Maybe the answer is YES. I’ve just been thinking a lot about the Holy Ghost. How much of this was actually the holy ghost and how much was just my personal emotions?
What about that girlfriend that as soon as I laid eyes on her I felt so strongly that she would be my wife but things didn’t work out at all?
What about that beloved uncle who received a blessing and it was mentioned that he would get a full recovery from his illness but in the end he just died?
What about the times that I got up to give a talk or spoke on F&T Meeting and everyone said that they could feel the spirit SO STRONGLY and I felt nothing?
What about the time that I felt so strongly that the Book of Mormon was true while reading 2nd Nephi Chapter 27 and now I feel nothing when I read that same passage???
I no longer stop, look, listen and feel for signs of the spirit. I will sometimes pray for guidance but I see things a little differently than I did before.
In the past I saw the spirit as a guide sort of like my own personal leahona.
Now I see myself as the captain of my own ship. I currently have no first mate. If the Holy ghost wants to tag along as some sort of an adviser by all means I’ll let him. I call the shots though and I’m not waiting for some strong emotional feeling to cloud my decision.
CAPTAIN SOLO wrote:Han Solo: Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all-powerful force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.
I suppose I believe in the Holy Ghost but I just feel that many of the experiences that I thought was the Holy Ghost actually was not the Holy Ghost.
GREEN[/color] [/size] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sw002.gif [/img] APPLESAt a very critical time in my returning to activity after being 17 years AWOL in the Church, I felt prompted to talk to the Bishop of my resident ward. I had never met him, but it wasn’t hard to find his name and number in the Salt Lake City directory. I asked if he would be amenable to a discussion of my hang-ups with the Church. He was very amenable and offered a listening ear, without trying to pass judgement or pressure me into activity. He actually agreed with several of my points mostly about how the culture sometimes messes up. Independent of that I got engaged to a woman who was very active in the church, but knew all of my heresy. She said she would marry me anywhere I wanted by anyone who I wanted, but she had one request. Would I ask ask my bishop what it would take to get a TR to get married? Given her willingness to give up something as important as a temple marriage at my request (she was a temple worker, & just released Relief Society President), I felt I couldn’t refuse her simple request. Besides, I was quite confident I wouldn’t get it because I hadn’t attended church in 17 years, & didn’t wear G’s.
Well when I met with the Bp, I told him of her request. He responded by asking if I were willing to discuss my feelings about a variety of TR issues, and then if I wanted to continue, he would give me the TR interview. We talked for about an hour as I explained how I was amenable to the TR beliefs, but had no particular conviction one way or the other. He also asked if I was willing to start attending Church, start paying tithing, and start wearing G’s. I told him I would give it another try, So he now was ready to do the TR interview. He told me though, that dispute my quibbles that we had discussed, I was only to answer the questions with only with “Yes”, “No”, or if I absolutely necessary, “Earnestly trying”. Given my limited choice of answers, I passed the standard with my integrity reasonably intact. He then asked me to sign the recommend next to his, and noted mine was every bit as important as the other two. Once done, he gave me the name and phone number of the Stake Pres, and told me he was an accountant by profession, and loved to get into discussions in TR interviews. My Bp suggested that I avoid that and just answer the questions with the Stake Pres like I had with him. I got through that interview with no discussions or problems. I did marry a wonderful woman, am grateful for our temple marriage, for it has helped get us through some difficult challenges.
From that experience, I concluded that
I must interpret those questions the way I need to, and answer them with language the TR interview needs:“Yes”, “No”, or “Earnestly trying”. That was 18 years ago, and I have continued to be moderately active, but live the gospel according to my understanding, and have managed to answer TR questions so I have maintained the TR ever since then. I occasionally have had to have conversations with myself, but only once have I involved a Bp in TR related issues. (it wasn’t very helpful), So I continue on, hoping the Lord will judge me on the intent of my heart to live the Gospel to the best I can, and not worry about what others think about my unorthodoxy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.