Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Cadence wrote:
For me I have made a conscious effort to de-complicate my life. Work, family, church is to much for me. Something had to give. It was the church because it brought me the most turmoil and anxiety
I second the motion. I’m into new areas of my life now where there’s a more immediate connection between effort and results. And my church service is in a lightweight calling right now: not leadership.
However, they did call someone to a key position today, and for a moment, I felt a bit of regret I wasn’t asked to do it. But then it left me when I reflected on everything I’d have to do, the stress, the turmoil, the anxiety….
However, I’d like to get back into the leadership thing at some point if they ask me to in the distant future, but only after coming to grips with the apparent time-wasting many Church callings seem to have. And its conflict with my own need for achievement….I was fully expecting people to say it’s not about the acehievement in the church, it’s about the striving, which for me, is chewing without ever swallowing.
What is the difference between spirituality and sentimentalism? I don’t understand the latter term as it applies to gospel matters. 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.
I agree with Ray — the mormon view of salvation, and its cousin, the Plan of Salvation, is probably the simplest religion I’ve ever looked into. Sure there are ordinances and covenants along the way, but they are directed toward encouraging clean living and good behavior.
The basic saving ordinances of Baptism and Gift of the Holy Ghost are easy to understand, and the commitments are clear and uncomplicated.
And its the only religion that clearly describes what salvation will be like.
I also like the fact that it gives other religions exactly what they expect and promise to their adherents– life with Jesus in an unmarried state without progression toward Godhood — in other words, the terrestrial kingdom. At the same time, it holds forward and even higher degree of “salvation” — life with God and eternal progression — hence the additional ordinances of the temple.
It also explains the oftimes offensive doctrine of other religions — that unbaptized babies and people who never hear about the gospel go to hell. The temple and baptism for the dead helps us see how these people are dealt with fairly.
And most clearly to me — the law of justice and mercy — this concept was brand new to me even though I was raised in a mainstream Protestant Church. No one could explain to me why a Savior was necessary. Then, enter the BoM and its clear explanation of the reason for His coming and atonement.
It was all simple and laid out clearly, unlike so many other religions I’d looked into.
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.
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).
After reading what Candice and CWald have to say, I think I’ve had intense spiritual experiences as a direct result of questions I’ve asked in prayer. They are so undeniable that I can’t get up from the prayer and think “Was that real? or did I just THINK I felt something?”. They actually happened. For me, it’s not a coincidence when you pray and suddenly your whole body is enveloped in this overpowering spirituality that is so intense you feel ALMOST like you came into the presence of God. And then, when it almost gets too intense to take anymore, it gently subsides. And you get up from the prayer knowing that it wasn’t some chance occurrence — it was too unusual, and too immediate after asking the question to be the result of self-deception or wishful thinking.
This has happened to me twice in my lifetime. The first was when I was 15 and praying to know about the existence of God. At that time, I knew nothing about the LDS Church,. The second time happened when I prayed to know if the Church was true, about 5 years later upon taking missionary lessons. And there have been other powerful feelings as a direct result of prayer since then as a direct result of consciously inviting the Spirit to change the hearts of other people in lesson’s I’ve taught.
This discussion is helping me understand a few things in my history. First, when I investigated the Church, I fasted for 3 days solid without food or water to get that same kind of confirmation I had when I was 15. I also prayed regularly, asking for that kind of answer and waiting, listening, in my prayers.
It never came. So, in spite of my positive feelings about the Church during missionary lessons, I told the missionaries to go away and stopped attending Church. Moroni’s promise had failed, I thought.
Then, about a year later, the question of truth vexed me again, and I knelt down and prayed again with very little preparation, and that same overpowering experience that happened to me as a teenager came again. In response to the question “Is the Mormon Church true and should I become a member of it?”. So, I immediately got baptized.
I believe the reason I’m here at StayLDS is as much a result of my own human weaknesses, problems forgiving people who hurt me, and lack of continued spiritual seeking, and self-discipline in sustaining the selflessness that is expected of us, and not a lack of spiritual confirmation. Also, the fact that there is also negative intellectual evidence of the Church’s truthfulness (as there is in any religion) – one needs to be constantly refreshing and renewing their spiritual experiences to make sure these faith-detracting experiences don’t eclipse the original knowledge a person has been given. It’s back to Alma 32 where you have to keep nourishing the spirit for those powerful spiritual experiences to have the motivational power they once had.
I also wonder if the Lord held out on giving me an answer to the “Is the church true ” question for so long because He knew that there is strong accountability for having the kind of firm confirmation I received, and knew I’d struggle to remain faithful after I had it. And with that, would come accountability.
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?
Cadence wrote:SilentDawning wrote:
Why are these spiritual experiences not enough to keep myself, or others with similar confirmations, enthusiastic and willing to serve wherever we’re asked to serve?Because there is no reliable evidence that those feelings are the spirit. They could be and maybe they are but they are definitive. I believe we associate them with the spirit because in our culture that is what we have been taught. The rational mind will kick in at some point for many people and they will question the logic and reason of a certain belief system or even the validity of a “spiritual” experience. Many people say for instance have had a powerful witness to do something or follow some path. But after awhile the path is not so clear and seems like not such a good idea.
We can not rely totally on spiritual experience as you describe for the very reason they are not always reliable. They are just one aid to us in making rational decisions.
However, neither is reason or intellect reliable. So, if what you say is true, we are left with nothing reliable to rely on for determining the truth. For me, that means divorcing myself from organized religion, as there are so many things that are disturbing about it . It means simply dancing to the beat of my own conscience and saying fooey on the teachings of a particular prophet or organization, as there is no way to determine if it’s true.
However, the spiritual experiences I’ve had been VERY REAL. They make that “indelible impression on the soul”. For me, I experienced them prior to ever reading Moroni’s promise, or hearing it from the missionaries. In fact, that was why I joined the LDS Church — because they were the only ones preaching that spiritual confirmation was the crowning litmus test for truth. And this was consistent with the way I learned to believe in God — through undeniable spiritual experiences.
Let me ask you this — if you believe that spirituality is unreliable in determining truth, and if you believe that intellect and reason can also lead you astray , what do you have left to determine truth?
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:That seems to me to be focusing too heavily on that one section rather than looking at the scripture in its context.
Maybe. Maybe not. It’s just another way to look at it – so I said, “I see it as . . .” You said, “To me . . .” We simply see it differently – but, fwiw, I try hard never to take anything out of context.
Other than that, what Brian said.
That’s OK. We can see it differently — and I appreciated having the benefit of considering your perspective and that you thought it a question/scripture worthwhile intepreting even.
Quote:I agree with this. I don’t want to give up on the church. And I’m dealing better with my anger at the bishop. I’d like to distance myself from him, but unfortunately it seems like he’s here to stay and there’s no chance of us moving to a new location. I’m trying to have compassion for his situation. Trying. I’m just hoping to get him to understand our point of view.
You know, I’m questioning whether you should even try to change his perspective. I’m afraid you may be frustrated by this given the hard line he took in that devastating interview you had with him a while ago. Greater peace may be had by dealing with your anger and moving on, and being proactive in trying to restore the Spirit through attendance and being part of the lessons on Sunday etcetera.
By the way, this Bishop will move on eventually; you’ll get a fresh one at some point, although it may take years. That’s what’s good, the only thing that stays the same about priesthood leaders is that they are always changing!
I hear you. Let me tell you my story. I was similarily offended by some out of place comments relating to an adoption. It devastated me for a long time. I literally could not sleep for a couple days. I woke up every day with a knife in my heart for a week. The sacrifices to keep my covenants, the good clean life I’d shown, all that seemed like it didn’t matter.
Although I had a testimony, it felt rocked to the foundations. My wife and I went into semi-activity for 7 years after this, so I have some sense of how you might be feelings.
But back to you — I feel your Bishop was very wrong the way he spoke to you. He gave up on your husband. And he shouldn’t have. I think the answer is time. Keep going to Church and let the lessons and the Spirit “wear positively” on your drained spirit.
That’s what worked for me — after 7 years of semi-activity, the Sunday lessons touched me week after week and my faith returned. I eventually accepted a little calling that I actually wanted to do, magnified it, and then moved to a new Ward. In the new Ward, I got a fresh start and took another little calling as a magazine rep, and then, was eventually called into the Bishopric, suddenly as a result of what my Bishop said was pure inspiration.
This situation will get better by degrees but you have to stay connected somehow to the Church and to God. You’ll have to also try to separate your Bishop’s comments from the Church itself. This is hard since we are taught it’s all by inspiration. But guess what — I don’t believe it is always. Leaders are not perfect. They are definitely fallible — I was one myself and did and said some dumb things to people as a Bishopric member when I was presented with sudden questions in interviews etcetera.
Regarding your husband. My wife, at one point, was planning to leave me because I was no longer into the church. (She was still active for a while after the adoption rejection, but I was stone cold). But she got some counsel from a woman in our Ward who had a non-member husband. This woman said that “love should transcend your husband’s activity in the Church”. My wife shared the counsel and stayed loyal to me, and it helped me feel warm about the Church eventually — way eventually. If she had’ve rejected me over it, I think I would’ve believed in the Church even less at the time.
Try to do things that are spiritual together, like family home evening on topics that are of general spirituality if you have children. Or the love box where you drop notes about kindnesses the other does for you, and share them at the end of the week, or pray together in general to God, if he still believes in Him. Also, if it feels right, meditating to spiritual music together over your life’s blessings and sharing those thing for which you are thankful. We do those things and it brings the Spirit — this may well cause awakening and strengthening of the Spirit in both of you.
I felt a bit of tears when I read your story. I feel sad for how you’ve been let down and I have faith things will change for you, and I feel the Spirit as I write this to you. Stay connected to God and don’t let the Church interfere with your relationships with Him.
cwald wrote:Because ask any of your non-member friends if they have prayed and asked if they “know their church is true and should they be a member of it” and they will tell you, YES. And MOST of them are VERY sincere and and have received the same spiritual experience that you and I have about our faith. So the question is, who is getting the correct answer. I would argue that we ALL are getting the right answer – which is ugly because it doesn’t fit what we are taught in SS. It is not the black the white scenerio that we were taught and grew up expecting. So my opinion is we HAVE to change the entire focus and way we view the church. IMO – it is NOT the “one and only true church on the face of the earth” and until we can come to terms with that – it will challenge our faith and lock us into Fowler stage 4, which is a very uncomfortable place to be.
That’s a scary thought which rocks central beliefs. Believe me, if I could be a member of a different Church, believing wholeheartedly God wanted me to be there, it would be a relief sometimes. The tithing, time commitment, and feeling that I’m never ever doing enough….my house would be paid off, etcetera as most Church don’t teach “the sacrifice of all things being necessary to produce faith enough for salvation”.
Somehow, I can’t accept that the Lord would tell me to join this Church if it was full of falsehoods, such as an erroneous claim it was the only true and living Church, the statement that turning altogether away from the Priesthood means no forgiveness of sins, the claim of His appearing to Joseph Smith and telling him none of the other churches were correct…..I can’t phathom why a just and loving God would tell someone to align themselves with such extensive untruths. And how can a Church like this be a church blessed by God with such outright deceptions such as that…
While I like the open-mindedness of your statements, and the attraction of being able to belong to a Church which requires less commitment, and still promises salvation, I have a hard time accepting that one, as attractive as it is. Don’t view this as an attack by any means, but I shrink to even think that’s true — it’s as if my spirit won’t let me because I feel it would lead me to apostasy if I started believing it wholeheartedly.
You said
Quote:“So my opinion is we HAVE to change the entire focus and way we view the church.”
Question — what is the new focus you’re talking about?
Also, are you suggesting the Lord has so many different Churches to serve the needs of a diverse group of people on earth? That there really is one universal church in the end?
I think the first statement containing Quote:whereby they lie in wait to cdeceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they dknow not where to find it—
makes this a direct reference to missionary work, or perhaps its cousin, activation. Yes there is a reference to bringing light to the world, but I don’t think it means seeking truth in general. That seems to me to be focusing too heavily on that one section rather than looking at the scripture in its context.
But I also realize I don’t have the corner on truth.
Someone once described Joseph’s translation process of the book of Mormon as one of seeing the events in the book of Mormon, and then writing them down in his own thought and language, rather than actually translating it as one would translate Spanish to English, for example, keeping the original words as much as possible. The reason I find it odd is because the actual translation route is apparently the way the Bible has been translated into our language. So, it seems strange to me that the Book of Mormon would be more of a paraphrase of something Joseph saw rather than a word for word translation. I put this aside, however (although I’m fascinated by responses to this from knowledgeable people). I have grown to love the Book of Mormon as a source of spiritual truth over and above the Bible.
For me, praying for comfort brought floods of peace that showed me who God really is. It’s hard to be angry at Him after the times he’s flooded my spirit with peace that takes away negative emotion and replaces it with peace and comfort. If I was you, I’d reflect on His greatness until you don’t feel angry at him anymore. Visualize the peace that comes from turning your life over to God, from being free of angry etcetera, and give yourself over to it.
Then pray and tell him you acknowlege his greatness, ability to comfort you, and that you’re willing to accept whatever He happens to throw your way — believing He’ll help you get through it.
Get yourself into a deep state of humility and then pray.
You’ll probably feel the Spirit in strong doses and it’ll dull that uncooperativeness you’re feeling with God right now.
