Are Our Spiritual Experiences Superior?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

Spirit speaking to spirit is unmistakable. No matter whom you are, this is why to deny the Holy Ghost is the only sin that cannot be forgiven in this life and in the life to come. It does not matter if others can verify such truth, only that you who has been touched by the Spirit remains true to that testimony...only there lies safety and salvation. Edited May 25, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[TruthSeeker2013]

Spirit speaking to spirit is unmistakable. No matter whom you are, this is why to deny the Holy Ghost is the only sin that cannot be forgiven in this life and in the life to come. It does not matter if others can verify such truth, only that you who has been touched by the Spirit remains true to that testimony...only there lies safety and salvation.

I appreciate your opinion and like what you're saying, but would you agree that the Church teaches otherwise? Would not the Church take the position that an Evangelical who believes she has been told by the spirit of God that the Book of Mormon is false has in fact not received that feeling from the spirit of God?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I appreciate your opinion and like what you're saying, but would you agree that the Church teaches otherwise? Would not the Church take the position that an Evangelical who believes she has been told by the spirit of God that the Book of Mormon is false has in fact not received that feeling from the spirit of God?

No, because I did not imply this. Only Spiritual experiences that are true. There is only one truth, it comes to the eternal truth. Edited May 25, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[tyler90az]

Trying to describe the feeling one gets when they receive the truth is impossible to describe. It is something you have to experience for yourself. Somethings can just not be put into words.

[tyler90az]

I appreciate your opinion and like what you're saying, but would you agree that the Church teaches otherwise? Would not the Church take the position that an Evangelical who believes she has been told by the spirit of God that the Book of Mormon is false has in fact not received that feeling from the spirit of God?

We would say that person did not read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

[TruthSeeker2013]

No, because I did not imply this. On,y Spiritual experiences that are true. There is only one truth, it comes to the eternal o

Sorry I misunderstood you. Can you explain what you mean when you say "only spiritual experiences that are true"? Do you mean that the Evangelical in my example would have felt feelings which are consistent with how spiritual experiences are described but that her feelings weren't in fact from the spirit? If so, how would she know if her feelings or yours are correct?

[tyler90az]

Sorry I misunderstood you. Can you explain what you mean when you say "only spiritual experiences that are true"? Do you mean that the Evangelical in my example would have felt feelings which are consistent with how spiritual experiences are described but that her feelings weren't in fact from the spirit? If so, how would she know if her feelings or yours are correct?

Are we working with a real situation here or just a hypothetical situation?

[Calm]

Would not the Church take the position that an Evangelical who believes she has been told by the spirit of God that the Book of Mormon is false has in fact not received that feeling from the spirit of God?

If so, it should be relatively easy for you to find and I would be interested in seeing it, so CFR please.

[pmccombs1]

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

You can't know, but you can hope and have faith.

[tyler90az]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

Answering your questions in order.

1. See my first response to this thread

2. Yes there are. We do not deny similar experiences happen in other religions. That is where God wants them to be until their opportunity to receive the whole gospel. Imagine stairs, you receive some truth then have the option of going to another step. Every person has a different set of stairs they must go up. That is even true for those born in the gospel.

3. See my first response to this thread.

4. You can not discover spiritual thins by investigating using worldly tools or processes. The answer will also not come in the form of worldly results. This is something higher, deeper and finer then what meets the eye. The Spirit is the ultimate confirmation on the finer matters of who we are, where we came from and where we are going. Just remember miracles follow faith, once somebody listens to the spirit worldly evidences will come.

[changed]

As a convert who met with many other groups prior to joining the LDS church, I can tell you that the spiritual experiences I had in other groups were of a different nature than what I experienced within the LDS church. For me, the LDS church is where I felt something other than just my own emotions etc. I'm not going to claim what types of experiences everyone else has had - I only know what I have experienced, but for me, it was different.

[Storm Rider]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

We claim all truth as our own; in other words, we are seekers of truth. Other churches and religion have truths, teach truths, and live truths and we should acknowledge those truths and learn from them. Their possession of truths does not negate or minimize the value or the truths of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. No where do we teach that the Spirit only interacts with LDS; in fact, we teach the opposite, that the Holy Spirit actively influences all people Christian and non-Christian, everyone. There is nothing that we can do about an individual who says they have received a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is false; I know what the Spirit has told me and I cannot deny it. What they say is irrelevant to how we should live our lives and how we stand as disciples of the Savior.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Are we working with a real situation here or just a hypothetical situation?

Both. I have known Evangelicals who have read the BOM and felt the spirit tell them it is false. I have also known people of other religions who have felt the spirit tell them that their church leader is God's only prophet on earth (not Mormons). I asked the question and provided an example to illustrate what I was seeking an answer to. So whose spiritual experience is superior, or are they so equal (our church doesn't seem to teach that)? And how does one seeking truth know if the spirit touching the Seventh Day Adventist is correct or the spirit touching the Mormon is correct?

[TruthSeeker2013]

If so, it should be relatively easy for you to find and I would be interested in seeing it, so CFR please.

Sorry, I'm not following you, and what does CFR mean? Are you asking where the church teaches that?

[mfbukowski]

Your question presumes that religious truth is the same as scientific truth- there there is a testable standard which is knowable against which revelatory truth may be judged- but there is not.

The problem is that it presumes that we can all look into God's mind and say "Yep- see here- that's what he wants me to do" or "Nope- see over here? Go's will is actually THIS- but you say it's THAT!"

Such a knowable standard we can all agree on doesn't exist.

It's not like 1+1=2 and not 3 - ever - under any possible circumstances.

Gods will is not observable objectively. So though it may "be" objective in some sense, we cannot ALL know that it is through observation.

There is nothing to point to which both warring factions can agree would solve which is right.

So because of that we cannot say that our experiences are more correct than others'- at least not in a way which will show them that we are right and that they are wrong. There is nothing to point to, as there is in science.

So arguing about it is pointless. There is no observable standard from which to judge.

[mfbukowski]

As a convert who met with many other groups prior to joining the LDS church, I can tell you that the spiritual experiences I had in other groups were of a different nature than what I experienced within the LDS church. For me, the LDS church is where I felt something other than just my own emotions etc. I'm not going to claim what types of experiences everyone else has had - I only know what I have experienced, but for me, it was different.

Exactly.

There is no standard for showing which is "better" which both can agree on.

[mfbukowski]

And how does one seeking truth know if the spirit touching the Seventh Day Adventist is correct or the spirit touching the Mormon is correct?

You live in your own mind and have to go with what is in your own mind and realize there will be ambiguity which is unsolvable, and not worry about it. The answer is in principle unknowable.- all you can do is go with your own "gut".

[The Nehor]

Yes.

[TruthSeeker2013]

As a convert who met with many other groups prior to joining the LDS church, I can tell you that the spiritual experiences I had in other groups were of a different nature than what I experienced within the LDS church. For me, the LDS church is where I felt something other than just my own emotions etc. I'm not going to claim what types of experiences everyone else has had - I only know what I have experienced, but for me, it was different.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Changed!

[TruthSeeker2013]

2. Yes there are. We do not deny similar experiences happen in other religions. That is where God wants them to be until their opportunity to receive the whole gospel. Imagine stairs, you receive some truth then have the option of going to another step. Every person has a different set of stairs they must go up. That is even true for those born in the gospel.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of it this way before.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sorry I misunderstood you. Can you explain what you mean when you say "only spiritual experiences that are true"? Do you mean that the Evangelical in my example would have felt feelings which are consistent with how spiritual experiences are described but that her feelings weren't in fact from the spirit? If so, how would she know if her feelings or yours are correct?

I was badly trying to explain that Spiritual experiences come from God, as it relates to truth, this is the source.

[Stone holm]

In the last analysis it comes down to a decision to believe. You can intentionally create a spiritual experience, but ultimately it comes down to a decision to believe. Most converts do not join because of agreeing with our doctrine or because of studying and comparing our truth claims, but because they were touched sufficiently with emotion that they made the decision to believe.

[Storm Rider]

Emotion is not the Spirit and never has been.

[Kevin Christensen]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

Have you read my essay on "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" which uses the lens of comparative religious experience. If so, what do you think? If not, why not?

http://dl.dropbox.co..._experience.pdf

A bit here:

Why make a model of religious experience? Ian Barbour writes that models are “organizing images used to order and interpret patterns of experience.” [1] Take one aspect of Mormon religious experience. How do you answer the question, “How are prayers answered?” Mormonism contains a far more comprehensive answer to that question than we generally realize. The stock answer, based on the D&C 9 revelation to Oliver Cowdery, is a good beginning, but unfortunately, we too often stop there. In this paper, I list scriptures that describe at least thirty different ways that prayers are answered. The Bible contains just a few descriptions; the modern scriptures contain many. Thirty different kinds of answers may sound like a lot to manage, but if you ponder them for a while, they do suggest patterns. The first pattern I noticed was the division between Feeling kinds of passages, such as D&C 9:8-9, and Thinking kinds of passages, such Alma 32:34. This natural complementary relationship between Thinking and Feeling aspects is a very useful beginning in ordering the kinds of experience described in these scriptures.

But that beginning leads me to take the question a step further—How do the kinds of spiritual experiences described in our scriptures compare to the kinds of spiritual experiences that underlie the spiritual experiences of mankind in general? How do we orient ourselves in relation to everyone else? We can start by looking at doctrinal differences, but that immediately defines boundaries and erects barriers. What do we have in common? Is there a common wine of core religious experience that remains fairly constant despite the differing doctrinal wineskins that we use to carry them in? Scholars of religion like Rudolf Otto, Ninian Smart, and Mircea Eliade have made significant studies of comparative religion. Where do we fit in their pictures?

Often our first attempts to orient ourselves place us squarely in the shoes of Joseph Smith when he began his religious quest. We have our minds disquieted by a confusing array of religious claims. The confusion is something that we all have to order and interpret at some point. It is difficult, if not impossible to communicate with those of differing views, or ever to take bearings on our own position without some place of fairly solid footing, a common ground upon which most people can at least comprehend. Ideally, we seek a vantage point that can both explain and order commonality, and that can also account for differences.

[1] Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion (New York:Harper and Row, 1974), 7.

It seems to me that the anxiety that many people have over this question is much influenced by where they might be on the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. Those in the earlier "All or Nothing" stage will inevitably feel a great deal of tension, as will those in transitional phases in which there is a great deal of anxiety over a lack of absolute certainty. After all, without absolute certainty, how can anyone have faith? Such a question, of course, self destructs if one considers the inherent absurdity of insisting on certainty before acquiesing to faith's bottom-line definitional position of committment without certainty. I think Alma 32 captures the dilemma in its important contrast of those who demand to finally "know" and those who settle for a process of exploring what he calls "cause to believe" that falls short of absolute knowledge.

Alma seems to me to point directly at the final stage of the Perry Scheme, and not towards the absolute certainty that characterizes the first stage, and which soon works into a process of awareness, struggle, and either progress, or regerss.

But here is a link to a helpful introduction to the Perry Scheme:

http://dl.dropbox.co...erry Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited May 25, 2013 by Kevin Christensen