- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Idaho Coug wrote:
The question I am seeking to answer for myself now is – what teachings contained in the LDS faith resonate with me as a unique individual child of God with a unique spirit, personality, needs, and life experiences? In other words, what aspects of the LDS Church are true FOR ME. What aspects will help me become a more loving, honest, charitable father, son, brother, and person in general. Some aspects simply DO NOT. Therefore, I readily discard them – not in a negative, critical way but by focusing soley on those aspects of the Gospel that DO help me in my journey here on this earth. Hopefully in doing this I remain open that some day the spirit will teach me what I need to know about those “disgarded” aspects of history, doctrine, practice or policy so that they can become a part of my testimony or tool box for growth. But I am okay if that never occurs in this life and if certain things simply remain outside of my testimony in this life.
First off, I can relate to feeling that certain aspects of LDS life are not “ME”…for example, I am not a bureaucrat, and the Church is the most bureaucratic organization I know of, next to government. And I feel irritated when I get called out on procedural things that don’t really matter in the long run.
However, isn’t there a maxim that you can’t just ‘pick and choose” the parts fo the gospel you intend to live? I’ve tried to make peace with my own concerns about aspects of the Church by saying I will not do certain things, even though they are technically ‘required’. However, that answer -that we shouldn’t just pick and choose those aspects of the gospel we want to live — is the one that always comes to the fore when people take this approach, which is similar to what you’re supposing.
Also, doesn’t the gospel also tell us to submit to all things, whatever God sees fit to inflict upon us?
This isn’t an attack on what you said, but simple presents the counter-argument.
[note: This is the part I’m having trouble with now — there are things I don’t want to commit to (like hefty leadership in a frustrating priesthood leadership calling), but I feel this expectation that somehow I must change my heart to be willing. And that causes angst. Your approach is attractive, but seems inconsistent with the way the gospel is presented, as well as the scripture regarding the natural man in Mosiah Chapter 3, I believe).
Perhaps it is just the stage I am at right now. Perhaps it will be the way I always need to be given my unique personality and spirit. But I HAVE to be able to ‘pick and choose”. Perhaps that can be reframed instead as “focusing on those things within the Church/Gospel that allow me to progress in my spiritual development”. However it is expressed, I have chosen to live a life as a member of the Church that keeps me in the Church and progressing. I fear that too many who leave the Church did so because they felt it was an either/or proposition. That there was no other way to be a member. I respect that this way probably does not work for the vast majority of active, committed members and certainly not for 99% of Church leadership. But at the end of the day I love the Church and must be in it in a way that resonates with my spirit and personality. I absolutely respect if that does not seem to fit for others. I respect that you are struggling to find a way in which it works for you.
SilentDawning wrote:It also sounds like Candice and Cwald — you both expressed that you haven’t had strong confirmations of the truthfulness of the gospel. I don’t fault you for this at all, in fact I admire you for going forward as best you can with some faith it is true. I wasn’t willing to do that. Do you think you would have the doubts you feel about the church if you’d had such powerful spiritual experiences that you believe are undeniable confirmations the church is true?
I have had powerful experiences that most would attribute to the spirit. Just as you describe in your post that you were overcome and your whole body shook. Lots of people in many religions have the same experience. It does not for me answer any questions. It is just an experience that makes me think harder, which in itself is a good thing. I do not in anyway deny this could be the spirit, but being intellectually honest I must also admit it could be my own mind fabricating what I need at the moment. So again I must say I am left with using these experiences as an aid in deciphering my path but not rely on them as absolute. I think this can be dangerous. Many people have had powerful experiences that have led them to do bad things or make bad decisions. I just personally believe reason should not ever take a back seat to emotion, or vice versa. They work together and you must respect each for its ability to find truth.
I am really enjoying everyone’s comments and perspectives. This is so good because we each spark off each other with new ideas and inspirations. I had always thought about the church in ‘black and white’ terms. How often have we heard, “It’s either all true or all false.” I used to believe that and since I had a testimony of parts of it, I just accepted all of it as true. I know longer believe that. How many things in our lives are either/or? We are told to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.” One of the teachings of the lds faith I have a testimony about is that we are ‘gods in embroyo’ and that we are joint heirs with Christ. When Jesus was told he is blasphmous for saying he was the Messiah and for comparing himself withGod, he quoted from their own scripture in Psalms about “Are ye not all gods? and this scripture cannot be broken” It has always made sense to my heart and mind that a princess can become a Queen and a prince a King. I believe in the principle of eternal progression and the persuit of excellence and that we have so much potential with the help of the atonement and God. How this is accomplished exactly, I don’t know. I never got a testimony of temple ordiances, and I believe Joseph Smith might have been a fallen prophet. Nevertheless, I believe he was a prophet and gave the world many good principles to live by. Will God fault me if I do not live by everything the church teaches, if I don’t have faith in everything. I can only follow those things I have faith in. One of the best articles I ever read was by Brigham Young actually. I think I have posted it before, but it bears reading again: Personal Responsibility
By Brigham Young
In the early history of the Church, many converts who joined with the body of the Saints expected to find a spiritual utopia. Frustrated at finding that the communities of the Saints were populated with people, who in many instances were no better than themselves, some of these immigrants voiced their disillusionment and left the Church. These people had anticipated a Zion in which they could bask in spiritual light day and night. Longing to be nurtured by revelations, miracles, and manifestations of divine power, they sought heaven on earth. They did not realize that spiritual maturity often comes slowly and that many, like themselves, find the courage and strength necessary to overcome their own weaknesses. Of such people, Brigham Young would inquire, “What hinders you from enjoying all that you anticipated?” If you are not as you desire to be, if you do not feel the prompting or influence of the Holy Ghost to the extent that you think you should, where is the fault to be found? Responding to his own question, President Young explained that it was a mistake to suppose that others could prevent you from enjoying the light of God in your soul. “All hell,” he said, “cannot hinder me from enjoying Zion in my own heart, if my individual will yields obedience to the requirements and mandates of my Heavenly Master “ (JD 1:311). Brigham Young declared himself to be the only man in heaven, on earth, or in hell responsible for Brigham Young. Further he held that the same doctrine applied equally to every Latter-day Saint. Salvation is an individual matter. “I am the only person that can accept Christ and save myself,” said Brigham. We cannot pin our faith on someone else’s sleeve. No one can accept or reject salvation in behalf of another. It is not the object or design of the gospel to create spiritual dependence. Of those who constantly suspend their own judgment to lean upon others they suppose to have greater wisdom than themselves, President Young said that they ‘will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming gods.” They cannot rule themselves, let alone give direction to others. Spiritually, he likened them to children who need direction in every trifle. “They cannot control themselves in th least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They can never become gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives.” Who will?” asked President Young, “those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heave, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course.” Ibid, p.312) (taken from SEEKING THE SPIRIT by Joseph Fielding McConkie)
Hooo boy! What a great discussion…and I’ll add my 2 cents. I’ve read each of the posts here, and perhaps the best I can do is challenge each of you a bit. My challenge is to suggest you go deeper — not in the specific questions and answers, but in the original premise of the question. Like somebody said, maybe the questions we are asking are simply the ones we’ve been told to ask…presuming there is an answer as “they” say it should be. For example, the question “is the Book of Mormon true” presupposes to most people that there is a physical, historical answer one way or the other. Digging deeper, maybe it means “is it true in the sense that it gives guidance and purpose to me?” Or “does it help me live a better life?”
Then digging deeper from the other direction, is “God” the Mormon God we were taught in SS about? Is the Holy Ghost exactly what we were taught it is? Is it possible that these specific, divine beings are in fact quite different than we were taught…and maybe the evolution of the teachings of such allow us today to view these entities as extra-dimensional energies that we can more readily grasp with today’s understanding of science than a few hundred (or thousand) years ago when the only way to grasp “God” was a perfected human living “out there somewhere?”
Incorporating these new possibilities into the paradigm of life changes everything, IMO. It allows us to more empathetically understand that each of the leaders are/were doing the best they could with what they knew. It allows many levels (like Fowler’s stages of faith…) of members — none of whom are really “wrong,” just have a different perspective.
I know it sounds a bit “twilight sone-ish,” but since we can show that time and space are illusions, there really is no truth as we previously thought…and we can be comfortable living/believing in whatever mythology works for us in the present…and live in peace because of it.
At least that’s how I view it today. But since “today” doesn’t exist, I may think differently tomorrow — if tomorrow ever comes!
😆 
Rix, You are a hoot!!! I enjoy your sense of humor. And I have the whole new in color DVD seriers of “Twilight Zone” episodes. That is one of my very favorite shows. Idaho Coug wrote:But I HAVE to be able to ‘pick and choose”. Perhaps that can be reframed instead as “focusing on those things within the Church/Gospel that allow me to progress in my spiritual development”. However it is expressed, I have chosen to live a life as a member of the Church that keeps me in the Church and progressing. I fear that too many who leave the Church did so because they felt it was an either/or proposition. That there was no other way to be a member.
I respect that this way probably does not work for the vast majority of active, committed members and certainly not for 99% of Church leadership. But at the end of the day I love the Church and must be in it in a way that resonates with my spirit and personality. I absolutely respect if that does not seem to fit for others. I respect that you are struggling to find a way in which it works for you.
I think we’d rather have you taking this approach, and remaining active in your own style, rather than lose you.
I also think it’s an interesting approach. The approach I’ve favored my whole life is a top-down approach. Get the big question answered and accept the rest of the doctrine, questioning it as you go, and getting answers to some things, and putting the other questionable things aside, going forward in faith.
Yours is a bottom up faith — you live those principles in which you have a testimony, and leave the others to lie fallow until you are able to get a testimony of them, rejecting some that don’t make sense.
While I respect this approach, i wonder though, if perhaps you lose the benefits of knowledge that come from doing commandments you don’t necessarily believe? As Christ said, if you do the doctrine, you will know of its truth. Do you think your decision to pick an choose shorts you from this kind of knowledge acquisition? Or are you systematically working at those principles, one by one, through faithful doing and experimentation?
This is a question, with a view to understanding and not a challenge to the idea of picking and choosing.
SilentDawning wrote:It also sounds like Candice and Cwald — you both expressed that you haven’t had strong confirmations of the truthfulness of the gospel… Do you think you would have the doubts you feel about the church if you’d had such powerful spiritual experiences that you believe are undeniable confirmations the church is true?
Thia actually made me chuckle when I read it.
I have received a powerful spiritual confirmation that the church was “true.” I have also received a powerful spiritual confirmation that the church was NOT true. I wrote a 20 page story about the day I learned the BofM and the church were true, I remember it well. I also remember the day I learned that the BofM and the church were NOT true. It was just as powerful—and a GREAT day in my quest for enlightenment and truth. Both days were memorable. I have a been a mormon for 30 some years and have “felt the spirit” often. I have also “felt the spirit” in other churches, in synagogues, in crack houses, in bars, around “gentiles” and criminals. I just don’t trust the “spirit” – as I believe it works on what we have already been programed to believe and our experiences make us bias to those emotional feelings. There are several forum topics going on right now discussing this concept of “feeling the spirit” – and I am not real good at expounding on this concept so I will just leave it at that and let “The Wise” words do my talking for me.
Well, one more thing first – I think it all comes down to what that word “true” means. I stay LDS because i believe the church is “true” – but that probably means something different for me than perhaps it means for another. I am a buffet mormon and I don’t apologize for it and I don’t feel guilty about it because I “THINK” I understand what the spirit means when it told me that “the church was true.” It is a tough, deep spiritual concept that one must search and find for oneself – its not to be had in SS or BRM Mormon Doctrine – IMO.
SilentDawning – I haven’t had time to respond to your comment about “top down” versus “bottom up” approaches. I have thought a lot about it though and think it is an excellent question. There is no question mine is a bottom up faith at the moment. I think I would like to respond in more detail by starting another thread shortly. Thanks for your thoughts! cwald wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I have a been a mormon for 30 some years and have “felt the spirit” often. I have also “felt the spirit” in other churches, in synagogues, in crack houses, in bars, around “gentiles” and criminals. I just don’t trust the “spirit” – as I believe it works on what we have already been programed to believe and our experiences make us bias to those emotional feelings. There are several forum topics going on right now discussing this concept of “feeling the spirit” – and I am not real good at expounding on this concept so I will just leave it at that and let “The Wise” words do my talking for me.
This for me is the crux of the argument.
I don’t really have a counter-perspective on this. In fact, reading it leads me confused a bit. I felt the spirit in a Catholic Church called St. Ann De Beuapres in Quebect, Canada, on a student field trip. The walls are adorned with all the crutches and implements of people who were healed miraculously there. I found a quiet place to pray and felt a bit of the electrifying force I’d felt previously, but it didn’t make a lasting impression on me or provide any call to action.
I share this only to show that I’ve experienced the Spirit in a lot of other contexts too, but never in response to a particular question, which then leads to an undeniable turning on of spiritual power.
This question and interpretation — that the Spirit can’t be trusted as the ultimate source of truth (hopefully I’m representing what you said accurately Cwald) — leaves me with absolutely nothing because I don’t trust reason. It’s flawed, even in the hands of geniuses on spiritual matters.
Can anyone address this conclusion — that the spirit can’t be trusted as an absolute determinant of truth (again, subject to any clarification from Cwald).
I’m all ears.
The Spirit confirms truth, better defined as goodness. I experienced the Spirit in some of the most unexpected places and situations. The “goodness” I encountered was always filtered through the screen of who I am in my experiences and values. Some dismiss or devalue such experiences as merely subjective. Yesterday I married a Soldier and his German bride–neither were LDS. Several things were unlike a typical LDS wedding, much less a temple wedding. The palace chapel was as ornate as any temple, but anyone could make a long list of dissimilarites. Throughout the ceremony, and at a few distinct moments, it was a highly charged emotional and spiritual moment. But it would be a mistake to take one’s encounter of the Spirit at that moment to be an endorsement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as the only true church, or whether or not the bride’s bare shoulders was an appropriate statement of modest dress, etc. The context infomed the witness: making covenants before God to love, honor and cherish one another strengthens us as indiduals, couples, families and as a society. This is goodness, and it is worthy of our pursit. For more than any feeling or warm fuzy–regardless how sublime–it is only in the pursuit, the doing, that spiritual witness bears fruit.
Thanks to Nathan for sharing his experiences — that the Spirit can manifest itself in a variety of places without necessarily endorsing a particular philosophy of religion as a result. That the Spirit can be present when certain principles of goodness are manifest, such as pure love expressed between two people, for example. However, this presence of the Spirit doesn’t necessarily imply that the Church or venue in which the Spirit is felt is necessarily the “true” church. Again, I want to repeat what I said earlier — that my own experiences were after I asked a direct question to God. Therefore, the outpouring of the spirit was
directly “connected”to the question I asked due to its proximity in time. It was also connected because I wasn’t feeling the Spirit before I asked the question. To ask a specific question, and then have a strong outpouring of the Spirit afterwards to me is evidence the question about whether “The Church was true and that I should be a member of it” was answered affirmatively. It wasn’t self-deceit either, because the intensity of the feelings. They didn’t make my body shake as Cadence implied (just for clarification) but they were extremely powerful — like pure electricity and power running through my body. And they both happened when I was asking questions in prayer.
The other thing that makes it hard for me to reject the idea the Spirit is unreliable, is what is says about God himself. It means he’s left us on this earth with no way to figure out the important questions of eternal life, our purpose here, or anything. If spiritual communication isn’t the ultimate source of truth, trumping even reason, he’s left us to flounder, relying on our own flawed intellectualism to figure out spiritual matters, without any real guidance. I can’t accept that a loving God will do this, especially in light of his scripture “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto him”.
Yet another reason — if truth is to be decided by reason alone, then it means truth is only accessible to those who have the mental capacity to figure it out. And given the complexity of the issue, I think it’s fair to say this intellectual capacity must be substantial if a person is able to determine the truth through this means alone. This means that people of below average, or weak intelligence are shut out from knowing the truth due to lack of native intelligence. This to me, is not the kind of world a fair and just God would set up. Most will agree that God loves ALL people, and therefore, would make the truth accessible even to those who aren’t Einsteins.
And to further this notion — I hope to explain something in Spock-like terms (by the way, I love your Avatar Cadence).
When I was in university, I took a philsophy course. We were discussing the religious philosophers like St. Thomas Acquinas and logical arguments for the existence of God. Our professor loved to challenge the class. So, he came up with an argument against the existence of God. He presented it to the class, and defended it for 20 minutes as the class tried to poke holes in his premises and conclusions. In my view, the professor was able to successfully rebut every logical objection to his argument from the class.
Then, he pulled out another argument — this time, in favor of the existence of God. He invited the class to poke holes in it using our knowledge of philosophy in the course. For another period, people tried. My impression was that he successfully defended THAT argument on a purely rational basis as well. At the end of the discussion, he loooked very pleased.
And then, the turning point. I sat reflecting on these discussions, because at that time I was meeting with the missionaries and was struggling with whether the story of Joseph Smith was true. I put up my hand and said “If we have two seemingly bulletproof arguments leading to two conclusions that CAN’T POSSIBLY BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME, then perhaps reason and logic isn’t the standard against which we should be measuring truth!”.
My professor looked very “hunted” as I said this. After a bit of silence he said “Logic and Reason is all we have. When I die, and if God exists and condemns me for not believing in Him, then I’ll simply tell him ‘You never gave me a solid REASON to believe in you”!!!
That answer didn’t satisfy me at all, it showed me the problem with worshipping God at the altar of reason. Reason is flawed, and so is logic. Spirituality, on the other hand, creates this strong impression that God spoke to us.
I invite further comments, but this is where I’ve landed after seriously considering what the people before me in this discussion have to say.
I don’t argue that the “spirit” is important when searching for truth. I just contend that it is unreliable in and by itself. I’m 100% confident that the followers of Jim Jones “felt the spirit” and truly felt they were following god. I think perhaps we make similar errors – and in the case of Jim Jones, a litte logic and reason would have gone a long way. I have no doubt that people get a confirmation of the “church being true” by the spirit. I have too. I have also come to understand that it all depends on my prior experience AND especially what that terms means. Of course “god” will lead us to a path that will enlighten us and help us gain peace in this life – and the LDS church certainly fits that description, so IMO, the spirit WOULD confirm to one that it is true and one should be a member. Does that mean that an honest, well-meaning Buddhist or Jew or Catholic of Jehovah Witness who is searching for “truth” and prays to know if their religion is true and if they should be a member, that they WILL NOT receive that confirmation, because only Mormons are going to be saved and the LDS church is “the only TRUE church on the face of the earth?” I don’t think so. God is going to use “the spirit” to attract us to “good” and lead us to good wherever that might be.
Then you also have folks who “confuse” their emotions (some folks are much more emotional than others) with the spirit, which as has been discussed in many threads currently, is VERY easy and plausible to happen.
Perhaps we are splitting hairs on this- I’m not denying the power of the the spirit — but IMO, the spirit is much more reliable when accompanied by some sound logic and reason. I think it was meant to be this way.
cwald wrote:I don’t argue that the “spirit” is important when searching for truth. I just contend that it is unreliable in and by itself. I’m 100% confident that the followers of Jim Jones “felt the spirit” and truly felt they were following god. I think perhaps we make similar errors – and in the case of Jim Jones, a litte logic and reason would have gone a long way.
I’ve thought similar things about Jim Jones, although my thoughts center on the role of faith alone in sometimes leading people to do things that are wrong. I often wonder why the Lord didn’t make everything glaringly clear, and simply let the challenge be to align oneself with it — without all this seeking and potentially erroneous conclusions. If you come to this earth, KNOWING there is a God, KNOWING what the truth is, you are spared all this debate, in favor of simply overcoming the natural man in abiding by that truth. Some will say that this is Satan’s plan. But I disagree — my “plan” still preserves agency.
That is probably a different discussion thread in itself — why this experience is structured so it isn’t unanimously clear what the truth is.
Quote:I have no doubt that people get a confirmation of the “church being true” by the spirit. I have too. I have also come to understand that it all depends on my prior experience AND especially what that terms means. Of course “god” will lead us to a path that will enlighten us and help us gain peace in this life – and the LDS church certainly fits that description, so IMO, the spirit WOULD confirm to one that it is true and one should be a member. Does that mean that an honest, well-meaning Buddhist or Jew or Catholic of Jehovah Witness who is searching for “truth” and prays to know if their religion is true and if they should be a member, that they WILL NOT receive that confirmation, because only Mormons are going to be saved and the LDS church is “the only TRUE church on the face of the earth?” I don’t think so. God is going to use “the spirit” to attract us to “good” and lead us to good wherever that might be.
Agreed — when I had my first electrifying spiritual experience, it was at the feet of a minister in a mainstream protestant Church in my town. I was a mere teenager. I later learned, upon joining the Church, that there was one priesthood holder in the whole town. At that time, the best I could get was the basic truths about God’s existence from that minister. And they were generally sound about His love for me, His accessibility through prayer, etcetera.
I don’t deny that others can have spiritual experiences within their own Church. But I question whether they ask specifically if their Church has all the truth, because it never enters into their mind that this might be a worthy question.
Quote:Perhaps we are splitting hairs on this- I’m not denying the power of the the spirit — but IMO, the spirit is much more reliable when accompanied by some sound logic and reason. I think it was meant to be this way.
I agree that there has to be SOME logic to it. But the question is, just how much? At the time of my conversion, it was enough that the Church taught us to do good, was filled with other good people I could relate to, had a plausible explanation of the Plan of Salvation, and also believed the Bible and about Jesus Christ. The basic teachings were plausible given the severe lack of evidence ANYONE can point to about the existence of God, the afterlife, and even the events surrounding the First Vision. There are times when I think we can spend our lives trying to unravel and explain the history and the mistakes that previous leaders, in all their imperfectness have “dragged” across our doctrine and history — perhaps at the expense of learning about general life principles through just going forward with faith.
By the way Cwald, we may have some divergence of opinion here, but know that I appreciate your comments and look for them when there is a thread started that you participate in, and in which I’m interested. Along with Candice’s comments. You are both intelligent and thoughtful people, and I appreciate your posts.
I recommend the book: Religion and the Pursuit of Truth by Lowell L. Bennion
I like the idea that there are tools in the toolbox to determine truth, including science, philosophy, reason/intellect, and religion/spirituality. Not one tool fits all truth.
Sometimes, for me, spiritual confirmation is enough.
Sometimes, however, it is not…for the same reasons that sometimes reason and intellect are not enough, nor sometimes scientific evidence is not enough, nor sometimes philosophical arguments are not enough.
Life would be boring if there was only one way to find truth, and we relied on God to give us all the answers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.