Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There are some books that are pretty good at helping to see life as less literal: The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz
The Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo
A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle
I had a dream in college that was very vivid to me. I wrote it down at the time because it was so realistic and hard to shake. A few months later, I was talking about that dream with someone and I realized that there was more going on in that dream that what hit me at the time. When I recorded it, I was very focused on the beginning and end of the dream. But in this conversation, some details from the middle part of the dream really came to the forefront of my mind and struck me as helpful to understand what was going on in my life at that time. I realized that there was a lot more to the dream than I had first thought, and it actually helped me to get my head around some thing and get some needed direction in my life.
If you look at my original account and what I would have said about it later, the accounts would be very different. Dreams, spiritual experiences, feelings, and relationships are all very fluid and hard to describe. Meaning changes over time. Results may vary.
Sometimes prayer is really just seeking for a sign. People want God to answer very clearly that He exists or that He wants you to do X,Y, or Z. It’s really easy to get the idea in your head that “If I just get this one answer, I won’t have to ask any more questions.” There’s a real tendency to turn off our inquisitiveness. Life is too short to keep questioning. People also want to think they are personally important and that God is involved in the intimate details of their life. We don’t believe in predestination, but there are many who like to live as if we do. One thing I tell myself is that I don’t let the things I don’t know erase the things I do know. But I would also say I don’t know very much (I believe and hope more than I know), and I am always willing to evaluate the things I do know, realizing that some things are not knowable.
Bushman said Joseph lusted for kin more than he lusted for women. To me he seems to have a bottomless pit of need for family. He also seemed to not really understand the endowment or the principles of sealing very clearly. He seems to be not just making it up as he goes, but trying to make sense of it. I think he struggled to understand these ideas, and possibly misinterpreted some. But here are some things that help me:
– Many women who initially hated the idea said they received a spiritual confirmation that they should participate. Were they deluded into it? While they were undoubtedly pressured, there were some who vehemently resisted pressure and later accepted it based on their own spiritual confirmation. I’m not willing to dismiss those women out of hand. Who am I to judge?
– Even if Joseph committed adultery (vs. polygamy), I can disaggregate that from the body of his work. He created a world-class theology. There’s more to it than just the man. And knowing I am a sinner, I’m not inclined to judge. His sins don’t justify my own. We tend to forget that all human beings are sinners.
Lowell Bennion rightly theorized that in a weird way the idea of eventual polygamy (in the CK or whatever) probably makes married couples less close than they might otherwise be, robbing them of their intimacy because they are resigned to the idea that marriage should not be intimate between a couple, but that we should be less possessive than that kind of intimacy would entail.
Sally M – welcome, and I loved your story. I guess I have a few observations about spiritual experiences. What they are not (IMO):
– just normal emotional responses to touching stories or AT&T commercials, feelings of inadequacy or gratitude (80% of what passes for spiritual experiences in F&T mtg)
– God intervening in big ways in our lives (the hand of God or a voice telling you what to do). I’m not denying that people might experience these types from time to time, but I don’t think everything good and bad that happens to us is God’s will. I believe He intervenes less than some would have us believe.
What they are like (to me):
– getting in touch with the seed of God in me; almost like an internal spiritual alignment that gives me clarity or helps me see the bigger picture.
– little nudges from God (or from inside of me) that say “not that way; this way” or “a little less of this, a little more of that”
– sometimes dreams that clarify my perspective on my life
I did have a breathtaking answer to prayer about the Book of Mormon at a time when I did not believe and had left the church. What exactly does that mean? To me, it means this was important, good for me, not something to discard. It doesn’t answer every question A to Z in polemic fashion, but it gave me direction that was meaningful.
I’m still trying to get my head around it. For me, StayLDS is a “mission”: to bring people peace and comfort through seeing how others have obtained it (because there is an external face to it). It’s kind of a signpost to Stage 5 (please don’t crucify me for talking Fowler!). Maybe other sites were a helpful exercise to give us a chance to explore some of what works and doesn’t, and StayLDS is only for those who feel compelled internally to help others reconcile or move to a more positive place (vs. just finding it for themselves?). For me, I think there is a lot of value in helping people get past their issues (external to them) and learn how to get back on an internal spiritual path that is positive and works for them. Plus, I want that for me, too.
OTOH, maybe we are like tour guides who don’t really know what we are talking about, but we sure are making it interesting for the tourists!
This is a good list, BTW. Most people who have issues due to First Vision accounts run into problems for the following reasons:
– The 1832 account doesn’t mention that God the Father and Jesus were both there and focus on a forgiveness for his sins & weaknesses, not a restoration.
– The First Vision is most commonly referred to as a “visit” in the current church rather than a “vision.” People grow up with the literal expectation that this was God & Jesus coming personally to the earth to have a conversation face to face with Joseph (bolstering his prophetic claim above even recorded OT prophets–at least until the Book of Abraham accounts).
I don’t have a major issue with this one either. I have had many dreams that could be interpreted as “visions” if I were generously applying that term (which people of our era are more reluctant to do), and I’m a pretty average person. I caution people who insist on the First Vision being a visit to beware of that perception. Maybe it was, maybe not. JS didn’t call it a visit. JS’s accounts to me are more like remembrance of a significant dream or significant spiritual experience. The details get muddled, but we remember our feelings and what the significance was to us personally.
It’s also the general application of the vision to the church (vs. how JS applied it to himself) that causes some strife; the modern church has imbued it (over time it has become imbued) with so much meaning. It is used to signify everything now: corporeal nature of God, that God & Jesus are separate beings, that a restoration was necessary, that priesthood power had been taken from the earth, that prayers are answered dramatically and personally, that the Lord works through the weak and uneducated, etc. But new members in JS’s day weren’t taught it. They were just told to read the BOM. I think understanding the vision as something significant to JS (why it is in JS-H) is the best context, not inferring its implication for the entire planet and all people who have ever lived or ever will.
I also don’t generally agree with the assessment that Joseph was a power-hungry deceiver. To me he seems confused, sincere and somewhat gullible.
