Spiritual Experiences as Valid Means to Determine Truth

[stelf]

This is something I think about a lot lately. I have had incredibly powerful, life changing, spiritual experiences. It is from spiritual experiences that I know I have worth. It is how I know that all humans have the same worth. However, I have also had powerful spiritual experiences that are contradictory. I have had powerful spiritual experiences that I interpreted to mean something was true that I later learned was false. I have had powerful spiritual experiences that told me something would happen and I took steps to prepare for the event, which ultimately did not happen.

I know I am not providing a lot of detail here and I apologize as most of these things are very private, but my point is that I am left unable to escape the conclusion that, although real and powerful, I cannot determine what is true using this method. The way I see it, either God is bad at communicating this way (e.g. the wrong message is sent or the transmission is faulty). This would explain why prophets can boldly declare eternal truths in general conference that are later recanted. Or, I am bad at communicating this way. This second option is entire possible and highly likely. The problem is that if this second option is correct then I have low confidence that I should trust that my spiritual impressions actually teach me things that are correct, because I'm bad at understanding them. It could be argued that this is the reason we have prophets and scriptures so that we can learn and measure our own spiritual messages against them. This doesn't fix the problem though since the reason I would trust that prophets speak truth is through one of my own spiritual experiences which I am bad at interpreting. Another option is that it is all just part of being human. We have these amazing experiences that we attribute to the divine (of whatever flavor or variety you were brought up with or are ready for) but are actually just our own minds. This last one is currently the one that makes the most sense by far to me right now, but I want to hear others thoughts.

[JVW]

I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you have had a powerful spiritual experience declaring the truth of something and then at a later time you had a powerful spiritual experience declaring that that same thing is actually false?

[bluebell]

I have experienced the same.  I have no real answers, but there have been times when I wondered if it was the expectation that came from the answer that was just my own mind, rather than the answer itself?

I have gotten an answer that was to do a specific thing in the past, and did it, and it did not turn 'good'.  Lots of lost trust in God after that.  But later I could see that the issue was in attaching a certain outcome to following the prompting.  The attaching of that outcome was what had been own mind; God never told me that my expectation would be fulfilled.  I just assumed that's where the prompting was leading.  I had put my trust in an outcome, rather than in the prompting itself.  Because the outcome wasn't what I had expected or wanted, I decided something in the prompting was at fault.  Time showed that the prompting was from God, it just wasn't for the reasons that I thought.

This was years and years ago and was a fairly simple case where time revealed what I couldn't see at first.  It was like elementary school level spiritual teaching.  It's the college level courses on spiritual experiences and communication with God that really do me in though because they are not so easy to wrap up or find meaning.  I've had experiences that haven't felt applicable to my previous lesson about outcomes and expectations, but I still wonder if that's not at least some of the key to understanding them, and I just haven't found the right lock to fit it in yet.

[stelf]

44 minutes ago, JVW said:

I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you have had a powerful spiritual experience declaring the truth of something and then at a later time you had a powerful spiritual experience declaring that that same thing is actually false?

Yes, I can in all honesty say this has happened to me. I could possibly be convinced to share some specifics, but I don't know that that would further the conversation.

[stelf]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have experienced the same.  I have no real answers, but there have been times when I wondered if it was the expectation that came from the answer that was just my own mind, rather than the answer itself?

I have gotten an answer that was to do a specific thing in the past, and did it, and it did not turn 'good'.  Lots of lost trust in God after that.  But later I could see that the issue was in attaching a certain outcome to following the prompting.  The attaching of that outcome was what had been own mind; God never told me that my expectation would be fulfilled.  I just assumed that's where the prompting was leading.  I had put my trust in an outcome, rather than in the prompting itself.  Because the outcome wasn't what I had expected or wanted, I decided something in the prompting was at fault.  Time showed that the prompting was from God, it just wasn't for the reasons that I thought.

This was years and years ago and was a fairly simple case where time revealed what I couldn't see at first.  It was like elementary school level spiritual teaching.  It's the college level courses on spiritual experiences and communication with God that really do me in though because they are not so easy to wrap up or find meaning.  I've had experiences that haven't felt applicable to my previous lesson about outcomes and expectations, but I still wonder if that's not at least some of the key to understanding them, and I just haven't found the right lock to fit it in yet.

I feel like I understand what you are saying and respect this interpretation. However, this does not resolve any issues for me as this kind of explanation relies on understanding long after the fact what the spiritual impression was actually about. Additionally, it flies in the face of many teachings that we are given about the simplicity of following God. So basically, we get promptings and we attach meaning to them. The meaning we attach is either right or wrong, but we don't know really. Then later we might learn more and rethink the meaning we attached. In some cases like you describe above we decide that the prompting was still from God, but our attached meaning was wrong. In others, I think we could decide that it wasn't really a prompting from some other source. So, taken as a whole this paints a picture in my mind that we as humans have these kinds of feelings and we create the meaning.

[webbles]

Honestly for me, I can count on one hand the number of times that I had an experience that I can definitely say came from God.  I'm too skeptical of my own experiences.  So, I don't really see spiritual experiences as a valid means to determine truth.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stelf said:

So, taken as a whole this paints a picture in my mind that we as humans have these kinds of feelings and we create the meaning.

I think that can be a reasonable picture, if that is your personal experience.  And I think we do create the meaning, but I think that God works with that.  I know that doesn't help answer any questions or provide any clarity for you though.

For me in my experience, it taught me that a prompting and the meaning of a prompting can be two different things and that I had to take care not to conflate them.  

Like for example, someone may get a prompting to run for political office and then assume that means they are going to win.  The prompting might not have anything to do with the outcome of the election at all though.  Maybe they needed to learn some things, or meet certain people, or a million other possibilities and that was why they were prompted to run.  But if they run and lose, they might decide they had been mistaken about the prompting--that it didn't actually come from God. When the extrapolation doesn't pan out, it might take the veracity of prompting down with it.  Kind of a 'guilt by association' reaction. 

My one experience taught me a possible danger with extrapolating from spiritual promptings or directions is that it can make simple communication with God much more complicated and fraught than it needs to be.  But, there have been plenty of other times when I have struggled with promptings or directions that I can't easily tie back to that lesson.  I still wonder if there is a part of the lesson that is relevant to my struggle though.  I guess time will tell.  

[JVW]

19 minutes ago, stelf said:

Yes, I can in all honesty say this has happened to me. I could possibly be convinced to share some specifics, but I don't know that that would further the conversation.

I'm not sure whether or not specifics would help either. In my life powerful spiritual experiences are incredibly rare (and if not life changing, at the very least paradigm shifting) and I haven't had any that are contradictory before. In my 15 years of following God, off the top of my head, I count 5 or less powerful spiritual experiences, and I don't think that the count would increase much upon further reflection, because those types of experiences really stick. Each of these experiences mark a dramatic shift in my perspective and how I feel in my heart. They ultimate changed the course of my personal history and who I was becoming as a person. While each of these powerful spiritual experiences revealed truth, ultimately, after the moment passed, my grasp on the revealed truth slipped to become merely words that cannot possibly contain the essence of what I learned.  And in all cases the revealed truth was dwarfed like an ant before a skyscraper to the change that was wrought in my heart. Powerful spiritual experiences did not leave me more knowledgeable of the truth as much as they left me with a new heart.

I'll share the results of one of these powerful spiritual experiences I've had before. The words that were left were "God doesn't hate me, and He doesn't want me to hate myself." I could tell these words to anyone and they will have little to no impact on the person. These words could have been told to me at any previous time with little to no impact on how I felt about myself. But my heart was healed during that moment with God when the words came. Since that moment I truly do not contain any self-hatred in my heart. No amount of reading books or talking with others could induce that kind of change in me. I lived with self hatred for decades and tried alleviating it via many avenues. Now, if one day I have a powerful spiritual experience in which the words that remain are "God hates me and wants me to hate myself" it won't really matter to me, my heart has already been changed so unless my heart changes again to become self-loathing as the result of the experience it won't really matter to me whether or not there is a contradiction in the words that remain.

I have many small spiritual experiences, but those are of the sort that could easily be dismissed or questioned as to whether or not they were divine or just a physiological anomaly.

Hopefully I'm speaking the same language as you here.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Honestly for me, I can count on one hand the number of times that I had an experience that I can definitely say came from God.  I'm too skeptical of my own experiences.  So, I don't really see spiritual experiences as a valid means to determine truth.

Good point.  I'd say most of my experiences with the spirit have had to with bringing about change or moving in a specific direction.  Most of the truth that I 'know' is really truth that I believe because of an accumulation of small moments added up over time and not impressive stand alone spiritual experiences.

[Navidad]

Good thread. For years I taught a course about the integration of psychology and theology. Psychology deals with the soul - used in a non-spiritual sense. The soul is made up of the mind, the will, and the emotions. It also interacts with the body from the brain to the glands and so on. The soul influences many things, both our behavior and our reasoning and thoughts. I think Navidad, our dog for twelve years (who I am named after on this forum), in my opinion, has a soul. She has a mind, a will (amen!), and emotions. She is capable of remembering and acting out of remembrances. She expresses delight, anger, sadness, and she works out problems, like how to get a toy out from under the kitchen table between the chairs. Furthermore, she learns, and she acts on that learning, sometimes seeking (a new toy when I come home from a trip to the states) and sometimes avoiding, when a javelina comes down to our river to drink.

What she doesn't have is something I do. She doesn't have a spirit - the primary (not only) subject of theology. I believe the spirit is a uniquely human element because I believe God breathed that spirit into us to give us a divine nature that is a mirror of His own. As humans, that divine nature (spirit) and human nature (soul and body) interact, conflict, and generally make the majority of what and who we are, think, and do. The two (or three) are always in interaction. Think of three concentric circles. In the center, all three are interacting; on the margins, each one acts on its own. 

Human experience is an integration of the three. Sometimes our spiritual dominates, other times the soul (mind, will, and emotions) dominates, and sometimes the body dominates. Perhaps most of the time they integrate, thus creating moods, adrenaline rushes, psychoses, aspirations, hope, and yes, spiritual sensations, which may indeed be a reflection of the three working together or of the at-that-point dominance of our spirit - perhaps in coordination with God's spirit, which, after all, is what was breathed into us to separate us from other living entities of creation.

What I am presenting here is my organization of what it means to be human, complete with body, soul, and spirit. This may not conform exactly to the LDS concept of humanity, but that is ok. What I have presented here is not my own structure but is a model used by many people of faith as they work to help human beings along in their life's walk.

So what is the relevance to the thread? Well, I believe that what you describe as spiritual prompting may come from different aspects of the integration of the three parts of humanity at any one time. At that point, discernment, wisdom, and judgment come into play to determine the causative factors at the moment of the insight. As a believer, I include the spirit, which may indeed interact with the Holy Spirit. As a former associate professor of psychology, I include the soul. As one who has had broken bones and who was a licensed apprentice embalmer, I must include the body! (More than you needed to know!) Ha!

Let's be aware of the interaction of these three in our everyday life experience. Then we use our judgment and discernment to assign the part of us that is most causing (causative factors) what we are feeling, thinking, or experiencing. Sorry for going on so. Just my thoughts on your subject. As a director of counseling at two denominational colleges, I saw all three in action in the students. My job was to help them sort it all out and come to a resolution when those interactions caused stress, depression, or turmoil in their lives. Of course there are a host of outside factors, in addition to the Holy Spirit, also often involved. I will save those for another sermon! Ha! Best wishes to all! 

Edited September 2, 2025 by Navidad

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, stelf said:

This is something I think about a lot lately.

If you haven't already read or viewed it, I would recommend checking out Blake Ostler's 2007 FAIR Conference talk: Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.

It's a bit lengthy, but quite good.

 

[manol]

6 hours ago, stelf said:

I have had powerful spiritual experiences that I interpreted to mean something was true that I later learned was false.

I have not had this exact thing happen, but something in the same general ballpark, many years ago, and it was devastating.  I now think I know where I went wrong:  At one point in the process I started to believe something that was self-generated rather than inspired, and allowed that self-generated idea into the mix, and it pretty much corrupted me and my endeavor.  And I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN because the idea was "forced" in a moment when no "answer" was forthcoming.  In addition, it was accompanied by uneasiness that other ideas did not come with, but I bulldozed ahead anyway.  As a result I am now intensely aware of my ability to self-deceive and blunder off in a wrong direction.  I am also intensely aware that my own thinking evolves and is still evolving; and for the forseeable future I expect to remain a "work in progress".

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

I'll share the results of one of these powerful spiritual experiences I've had before. The words that were left were "God doesn't hate me, and He doesn't want me to hate myself."

I believe you. I remember you sharing this before.  THANK YOU, because if "all are alike unto God", then that applies to all the rest of us as well. 

So, I don't think God hates any of us, nor wants any of us to hate themself. 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, stelf said:

This is something I think about a lot lately. I have had incredibly powerful, life changing, spiritual experiences. It is from spiritual experiences that I know I have worth. It is how I know that all humans have the same worth. However, I have also had powerful spiritual experiences that are contradictory. I have had powerful spiritual experiences that I interpreted to mean something was true that I later learned was false. I have had powerful spiritual experiences that told me something would happen and I took steps to prepare for the event, which ultimately did not happen.

I know I am not providing a lot of detail here and I apologize as most of these things are very private, but my point is that I am left unable to escape the conclusion that, although real and powerful, I cannot determine what is true using this method. The way I see it, either God is bad at communicating this way (e.g. the wrong message is sent or the transmission is faulty). This would explain why prophets can boldly declare eternal truths in general conference that are later recanted. Or, I am bad at communicating this way. This second option is entire possible and highly likely. The problem is that if this second option is correct then I have low confidence that I should trust that my spiritual impressions actually teach me things that are correct, because I'm bad at understanding them. It could be argued that this is the reason we have prophets and scriptures so that we can learn and measure our own spiritual messages against them. This doesn't fix the problem though since the reason I would trust that prophets speak truth is through one of my own spiritual experiences which I am bad at interpreting. Another option is that it is all just part of being human. We have these amazing experiences that we attribute to the divine (of whatever flavor or variety you were brought up with or are ready for) but are actually just our own minds. This last one is currently the one that makes the most sense by far to me right now, but I want to hear others thoughts.

I have not had this experience as you describe it and I imagine we all fall somewhere along a bell curve. All we have to work with is what we've got, which is part of being human.

If you sense that God is bad at communicating, give Him grace. Same with the prophets, the scriptures and other trusted sources. If you sense that you are bad at communicating, ask Him for and give yourself some grace.

I think relationships, including those with God, entail communication, actions and many other aspects of what we do. If one isn't working satisfactorily, something else must.

If you attribute your relationship with Christ to your own mind, I suppose there are worse things you can imagine!

[OGHoosier]

9 hours ago, stelf said:

I am left unable to escape the conclusion that, although real and powerful, I cannot determine what is true using this method.

I mean, I can't determine what is true using that method, as long as the requirements for "determine" are sufficiently stringent.

I once read a book by a philosopher named Philip Wiebe, who is one of my favorite philosophers (though he unfortunately passed away a few years ago) and a significant influence in my own thought. The book was entitled Intuitive Knowing as Spiritual Experience. The thrust of the book is Wiebe's discussion of his own conversion to Christianity after several decades as an atheist philosopher (of epistemology, the study of what constitutes knowledge, no less), in conversation with a database maintained by the University of Wales containing 45 first-hand accounts of people having experiences which cause them to "know things they have no right to know." Wiebe goes into the question of reliability and finds similarly to what you have - the reliability of "intuitive knowing" as method is not readily demonstrable - but maintains that belief in the output of individual spiritual experiences or "intuitive knowing" is still justifiable because "spiritual experience" is a remarkably fuzzy category and is not really suitable for classification as a "method." I mean, we're fundamentally talking about a set of sensations here - it's really hard to rigorously categorize! I can't say that I consider anybody else's spiritual experiences as existing in the same category as mine because there's no way to really compare the phenomena - we both felt the experience was special in some way but that's basically the only boundary on the umbrella of "spiritual experience", which is way too wide to do serious comparisons. This leads me to the belief that each experience is (as Blake Ostler also argues) sui generis, and needs to be taken individually.

If you want to run with spiritual experiences as method a little more, though...

Almost any method can be impugned if you define it without clearly addressing its inputs, because virtually all methods of thought have produced erroneous outcomes, but we also accept beliefs from methods which produce contradictory results across society. For instance, take political and philosophical reasoning. There is a wide diversity of views which are not simply subjective - our faculties of reasoning, when applied to politics and philosophy, are oriented towards the truth, but diversity in conclusions remains! We confront these differences by disputing the inputs of the method - our data - but even that doesn't produce uniformity. Are we justified in holding those beliefs which we arrive at using our philosophical reasoning? How rigorous does an epistemological method have to be, how exclusive of error, before we hold beliefs based on it?

In other words, I'd like to push on the bolded:

10 hours ago, stelf said:

The way I see it, either God is bad at communicating this way (e.g. the wrong message is sent or the transmission is faulty). This would explain why prophets can boldly declare eternal truths in general conference that are later recanted. Or, I am bad at communicating this way. This second option is entire possible and highly likely. The problem is that if this second option is correct then I have low confidence that I should trust that my spiritual impressions actually teach me things that are correct, because I'm bad at understanding them. It could be argued that this is the reason we have prophets and scriptures so that we can learn and measure our own spiritual messages against them. This doesn't fix the problem though since the reason I would trust that prophets speak truth is through one of my own spiritual experiences which I am bad at interpreting. Another option is that it is all just part of being human. We have these amazing experiences that we attribute to the divine (of whatever flavor or variety you were brought up with or are ready for) but are actually just our own minds. This last one is currently the one that makes the most sense by far to me right now, but I want to hear others thoughts.

Lessening one's confidence may be appropriate. But total dismissal seems a bridge too far to me.

I don't think we have a very good account of the inputs of spiritual experience. It seems to be a very dynamic, even chaotic phenomenon that takes inputs from both the divine and human side. So long as that is the case, it's hard to pinpoint where the mistakes lie, if mistakes they in fact are. However, I don't think we should discount the phenomenon of spiritual experience because it misfires every now and again - all epistemologies are vulnerable to that to some degree. It really, honestly, depends on your tolerance for error and how worried you are about Type I errors (incorrectly believing something false) vs. Type II errors (incorrectly dismissing something true). 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brigham Young spoke of the problem of absolute truth when he said this:

Quote

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiffnecked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.

One of our problems is that we like the idea of absolute truth (we really don't like ambiguity). But we run into a problem. And that problem is that our knowledge isn't absolute - it is always relative and our understanding of it is progressive (at least from our mortal perspective). In LDS history, we have that moment after the revelation to lift the priesthood ban when Elder McConkie said (to those who were resisting the change):

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come.

The reality that underlies this statement isn't that we now have absolute truth (with the new light and knowledge that came into the world) but rather that our truth was becoming more aligned with our trajectory towards something better. Within Mormonism, as a religion that believes in continuing and progressive revelation, we can be certain of at least two things. The first is that there is some absolute truth that we are looking forward to, and the second is that we do not have it. At best, we will be in a constant series of events in which we discover new truth - some of which will overturn the truth that we thought we knew (and that we thought we knew was absolute). In fact, Alma 32 tells us as much - that at least in the beginning, the only thing that we can know with certainty is that the "seed is good" - and yet, the seed is not our goal, and the seed, when planted, becomes something else. But these kinds of lessons are difficult because we don't like ambiguity, we don't like this sense of having to learn that what we believe isn't exactly true (or that it is only contextually true or relatively true). But, in the end, not only do we not have complete and absolute truth, we also don't know how far we have to go to get there. Almost fifteen years ago now, I wrote a guest blog post on Patheos about Mormonism and three of its primary values - and I think it is still relevant to this sort of discussion:

The first is the idea of ongoing revelation:

Quote

With ongoing revelation, the only certainty is that change is inevitable, and that we never know quite as much as we think we do. And even as we receive more revelation we are reminded that our present understanding too is limited; we can assume with absolute certainty that we believe some things (perhaps many things) that are not absolute truth (and which may be entirely wrong), that are not understood, and about which we presume that we will receive additional insight and revelation. Our leaders and our prophets, our texts, even our scripture, are not viewed as inerrant, perfect, or necessarily self-revealing.

Joseph Natoli describes it: "In the life of a postmodernist, the problem is not that we might wander and that we therefore would be faced with contesting views none of which can validate itself as The Truth. The problem is that we might elevate some narrative to Truth status and stop wandering. We might invest some observation . . . with full determinate status." Just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say.

The fact that we sometimes receive revelation that contradicts or challenges our previous understanding is, from this perspective, a spiritually healthy occurrence. It means that we are not stagnant - it means that we are in a different place than we were, and it means that we can receive that correction that we were not able to get before.

The second idea that I discussed was about the idea of authoritative revelation:

Quote

There is an instructive narrative in the Book of Mormon. The prophet Lehi receives a vision of the Tree of Life. Afterward, his sons want to understand the vision, and the narrative contrasts two separate responses. The first response is that of his son Nephi. To understand the vision, Nephi asks God to receive it, and he does receive it. As he tell us, "I Nephi was desirous also, that I might see, and hear, and know of these things . . ." After he receives his vision, his brothers (Laman and Lemuel) come to him and ask him about its meaning. And he asks them: "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" They respond by suggesting that God does not speak to them.

The lesson is clearly that receiving your own revelation is far more important than hearing it, even from a prophet. What is also interesting is that while the vision is the same, it is still experienced. Nephi tells his brothers of one of the elements of his vision—a river of filthy water—and then, referring to his father Lehi, he tells us that "and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things, that he beheld not the filthiness of the water." The revelation, the vision, can be the same, but our experience of it is individual. The leaders of the Church—even its prophets—are no different from all of the members of the church.

The role of a prophet is not to be a substitute for God. Rather, the prophet speaks to those who do not (or cannot) speak to God themselves. For the rest of us, it is far better for us to individually receive revelation than to rely on some intermediary who can only interpret the oracle he delivers, and whose interpretation is no more valid than any other interpretation by those who receive it. The Church as an institution may be led by a hierarchy, but that hierarchy functions primarily to direct the church. This is not an issue of salvation. It is the personal revelation that we receive that brings salvation, and which helps us to know God. We are encouraged to receive our own revelation and that encouragement extends to all facets of our lives. Personal revelation is the most significant revelation we can receive. And since we receive revelation in such a way, it should come as no surprise that is different for all of us; it is experienced, and we all see it differently—some of us may see the river, others may focus on something far more important and immediately relevant.

The point of this is that it is our personal revelation that is most able to help us reorient ourselves spiritually. If we took everyone we know and we drew a line from where they are to an imaginary point where absolute truth is, we would all have unique lines. None of us are in the same place, and all of us will need to take a unique path to arrive at that truth. This is why personal revelation is the most valuable to us - because it alone can take into consideration where we are and where we want to go. Other sources of revelation can provide important insight - but it is a general sort of insight. It is there to help us discover the way to personal revelation. And as Moses told the children of Israel who were unhappy about the individuals in the community who were prophesying without explicit authority (Numbers 11:29): "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" This is the goal of religion - not cause everyone to conform but to get everyone moving in the right direction so that we can achieve that eternal objective with the most direct trajectory - so that our knowledge of truth will grow as much as possible in that direct line.

The final thing I mentioned was the connection to all of this with our final reward:

Quote

The third trait of Mormonism is that idea that there is no universal standard by which everyone is judged, nor is the LDS Church the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He also noted "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." Mormon theology suggests that all are judged by their individual circumstances. There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases). Everyone is given an equal opportunity for salvation, even if we don't always understand how that opportunity presents itself. This functions both within the faith, and external to it. Even within the membership of the church, uniformity of belief and understanding is not a requirement for salvation.

The idea here is simple - in Mormon theology, we are going to be judged by the use we make of the light that we receive. And here again, that personal revelation is going to be far more significant than our understanding of things provided by someone else. I think sometimes we envision revelation as some kind of absolute truth. That God is supposed to tell us exactly what is right in no uncertain terms, and in a way that is capable of being set in stone for everyone, everywhere. That all we need is to read the scriptures the way that God intended, and we will have all the truth. Brigham Young didn't view revelation in this way (there is a bit of irony in this - looking at the quote above - since of course, he himself was responsible for bringing a lot of his cultural and social views into his calling as a prophet). If we look at the Old Testament, in its context, it was given to a group of people who had certain views, and their scripture was their to guide them in the right direction. What Brigham Young implies in his statement above is that both he and the Church were not yet at the end of their journey either - and I think this is still true today - should we be given scriptures again, they would be quite different in places than what was given in the past - because we (those of us who receive it) are in a very different place than those in the past. Should the Book of Mormon be divinely translated again for us today, it would emphasize different things. And the same is true with our personal revelation. Every time we encounter God, we encounter Him from a different place than we were the last time - and so each time we receive revelation, it is something new. We need to learn not to get hung up on the past, as if it was the absolute truth - and should never be contradicted. There is no living gospel in the past.

So, finally, I think that what this really suggests is that the goal for us in mortality (and one that I think we aren't really capable of achieving) is that we don't move from revelation to revelation with these gaps in between. We want to be in a place where we come close enough to the mind of God that we are continuously moving in the right direction - and continuously correcting our course - and continuously receiving revelation. As we approach this, the contradictions become fewer and less significant because we are moving in a more direct line instead of meandering all over the place - and because our understanding gets better. So, for @stelf:

19 hours ago, stelf said:

We have these amazing experiences that we attribute to the divine (of whatever flavor or variety you were brought up with or are ready for) but are actually just our own minds. This last one is currently the one that makes the most sense by far to me right now, but I want to hear others thoughts.

If I go back to Lehi and Nephi and their vision of the Tree of Life, something can come from the divine but it also has to come out of our minds. The two things aren't separate. I think that our amazing experiences are transcendent - and they have the power to help us change our lives - but because they are transcendent - because we can't really reduce them to language. And this means that we aren't really experienced in understanding that communication that God gives us - and so we have to work it out. Sometimes, I think that we misunderstand about the things which Jesus speaks in 3 Nephi 19, which couldn't be written. I think that what this means is that the language couldn't express the transcendent experience - it literally could not be written (there doesn't have to be a deeper thing going on here). So, sometimes, in our efforts to understand, we get it wrong. If all we need to know is that "the seed is good," then just having the experience is enough. For others, that struggle to understand may engage a lifetime of faith and a recognition of ambiguity that comes with it. So my advice is this - don't give up on your personal revelation. Those experiences are the most direct route to understanding yourself and your Father in Heaven.

[stelf]

I honestly can't fully express how grateful I am for the very thoughtful replies everyone has provided. I really couldn't expect less from this group though.

As many others have said, I can count on one hand the number of "transcendent" spiritual experiences that I have had. Similar to @JVW one of mine was very similar in that was how l learned to let go of the shame and self-hatred I had carried for most of my life.

I would also guess that many on this board would fully support and understand if my spiritual understanding led me in a different direction. What I am dealing with is very similar to what @bluebell mentioned above. I attached a certain narrative to my spiritual experiences that led me to the conclusion that I should trust the scriptures, the prophets, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one true church. In essence, I really truly believed what the church claims about itself as a result of these experiences. However, I am now forced to reevaluate that narrative. As I said previously, I am not questioning the reality or power of those experiences, but I know that the story around them cannot be what I originally thought.

 

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, stelf said:

I honestly can't fully express how grateful I am for the very thoughtful replies everyone has provided. I really couldn't expect less from this group though.

As many others have said, I can count on one hand the number of "transcendent" spiritual experiences that I have had. Similar to @JVW one of mine was very similar in that was how l learned to let go of the shame and self-hatred I had carried for most of my life.

I would also guess that many on this board would fully support and understand if my spiritual understanding led me in a different direction. What I am dealing with is very similar to what @bluebell mentioned above. I attached a certain narrative to my spiritual experiences that led me to the conclusion that I should trust the scriptures, the prophets, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one true church. In essence, I really truly believed what the church claims about itself as a result of these experiences. However, I am now forced to reevaluate that narrative. As I said previously, I am not questioning the reality or power of those experiences, but I know that the story around them cannot be what I originally thought.

 

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "one true church" and the plan to find that church is suppose to be found by personal answers to prayer then I would say that plan has utterly failed when less than 1% of the population of humans on this planet have found that path back to God.  And even a lot of those that have found that path have left because of the failings of prophets to receive answers to their own questions about doctrine and where to lead this one church.  

If scriptures are the magic key to finding that path or even truths, then how can so many different, often conflicting beliefs, come from scripture.  

Of all the ways to find truth in this world, revelation from God to find truth seems to be the most flawed if one believes in an only one true church paradigm.  Just step back for a minute and reflect on all those millions of people in far greater numbers that members of the LDS church who are willing to devote their entire lives for something they believe God has guided them to.  A lot of those personal beliefs actually lead people away from Christ.  I have traveled the world and I can tell you first hand there are extremely devout people who believe with all their heart that they believe God has revealed His truth to them who are not even Christian.  The longer I live, the less I trust God to show me some narrow path back to Him and the more I trust in who I am as a person and my own relationship with God is what is paramount.  I don't believe God leads us to a single path back to Him.  The very nature of a "one true church" means an exclusion of others and their path back to God.  

I am not saying that there is not value in being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For some people that may very well be a path back to God that works for them.  But I really bristle at the concept of that being the "one true church".  It's not.  There is no one true church.  Sometimes there is not even a church at all that leads people on the path back to God.  

 

 

[cujo22]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If I go back to Lehi and Nephi and their vision of the Tree of Life, something can come from the divine but it also has to come out of our minds. The two things aren't separate.

Your whole post is so so good. I like to say that revelation is a collaborative experience. I get frustrated that I continue hearing in church, even general conference, of some experience and they talk about wondering if the message was from my own thoughts or the Lord's. ??  What a confusing thing to say to kids (and adults too really). Like they're supposed to be hearing voices. Like I've got to be careful because I could have a thought that didn't come from my brain or something and was actually planted by the God or by the devil? Even the most lop-sided form of revelation that we can  imagine relative to how collaborative it is (something like an angel appearing and delivering a message) at the very least gets processed through our brain. So we're always part of it. And nearly all (if not all) revelation is much much more collaborative than that and, in my opinion, the whole experience is much better characterized generally by phrasing the spiritual journey as a "walk with God" rather than a "trying to hear God's voice" or something like that. To walk with God is for God to always be with us, going through experiences together, trying to understand and make decisions together, even experiencing disappointments together. I like this much more than envisioning God as way over there and me way over here and trying to pick up signals and when I do get a signal it is obviously 100% total truth. That concept of the spiritual journey, still encouraged in some ways at church, can lead a person to dangerous places (like Chad Daybell), basically too much certainty. Your/my description of revelation inherently includes an important level of humility. There can be confidence by there should be "certainty", there's a humble growing and learning instead. We learn from Joseph and Brigham and Wilford and others that editing a revelation is OK, that we can learn and understand more.

Edited September 3, 2025 by cujo22

[stelf]

43 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

Your whole post is so so good. I like to say that revelation is a collaborative experience. I get frustrated that I continue hearing in church, even general conference, of some experience and they talk about wondering if the message was from my own thoughts or the Lord's. ??  What a confusing thing to say to kids (and adults too really). Like they're supposed to be hearing voices. Like I've got to be careful because I could have a thought that didn't come from my brain or something and was actually planted by the God or by the devil? Even the most lop-sided form of revelation that we can  imagine relative to how collaborative it is (something like an angel appearing and delivering a message) at the very least gets processed through our brain. So we're always part of it. And nearly all (if not all) revelation is much much more collaborative than that and, in my opinion, the whole experience is much better characterized generally by phrasing the spiritual journey as a "walk with God" rather than a "trying to hear God's voice" or something like that. To walk with God is for God to always be with us, going through experiences together, trying to understand and make decisions together, even experiencing disappointments together. I like this much more than envisioning God as way over there and me way over here and trying to pick up signals and when I do get a signal it is obviously 100% total truth. That concept of the spiritual journey, still encouraged in some ways at church, can lead a person to dangerous places (like Chad Daybell), basically too much certainty. Your/my description of revelation inherently includes an important level of humility. There can be confidence by there should be "certainty", there's a humble growing and learning instead. We learn from Joseph and Brigham and Wilford and others that editing a revelation is OK, that we can learn and understand more.

I appreciate this very much and as a paradigm I think it could work for me. However, it does not work for me within the teachings of the LDS church. 

You are of course free to disagree, but we indoctrinate our children to "Follow the Prophet" with a catchy song. President Nelson recently stated that prophets will always speak the truth. I think that claim is objectively false. So, then the question return as to how do we know what the prophets get right or wrong, and we are back to relying on the spirit to teach us the truth. 

Edited September 3, 2025 by stelf

[Navidad]

"The third trait of Mormonism is that idea that there is no universal standard by which everyone is judged, nor is the LDS Church the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He also noted "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." Mormon theology suggests that all are judged by their individual circumstances. There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases). Everyone is given an equal opportunity for salvation, even if we don't always understand how that opportunity presents itself. This functions both within the faith, and external to it. Even within the membership of the church, uniformity of belief and understanding is not a requirement for salvation."

I copied and pasted this part of Benjamin's message from a few hours ago. I love his post, but I can't figure out who he is quoting when. So, Benjamin, if you read this post, please tell me who you are quoting from in the very first sentence and in the last few sentences of this paragraph. Perhaps these are your own thoughts?

Whenever I read or listen to something like this from a faithful member of the LDS church, I just reflexively sit back in my chair and shake my head in amazement. If the church is not the only repository of truth, then I don't understand how it can be the only repository of power and authority. It cannot be the only church composed of the only individuals who are the only ones pleasing to Christ and Heavenly Father. Truth is the source of authority and power. 

To believe that one is the only source of authority and power, one would need to believe, I think that they and theirs is the only font of truth. Of the hundreds or more members I have interacted with, I don't believe I have ever met someone willing to accept doctrinal, theological, or spiritual counsel from a non-member. One might say about my wife, of course she exhibits some gifts of the Spirit, but she is not LDS; therefore, she cannot have thee Gift of the Spirit. Or, perhaps someone might say, as whoever wrote your quote said, "There is no list of specific requirements for salvation, but there sure are when it comes to exaltation or an eternity in the presence of God. It used to be plural marriage was a requirement. Then that changed, and perhaps now a requirement for eternal marriage or family is required for eternal life in the regular presence of Christ. The ordinances, provided by a specific person in a specific manner at some specific time (pre or post death) are required, are they not? Is that not a requirement of the church? My goodness, in the Juarez Ward they are now even the requirement to give a sacrament talk, sing a solo, or be a substitute teacher. Even LDS history is bounded by the idea of the church being thee repository of truth. Historically, persecution of the LDS individual had been seen as "innocent persecution." Whenever I give a talk in which a nasty deed comes up that was committed by a faithful member, it seems like everyone is waiting for me to say why that person was justified in that deed. Whenever a faithful member was hung, like the Monroys in Hidalgo, they are martyrs. No one ever mentions they were connected to an oppositional militia. Being hanged for being a zapatista is not nearly as edifying as being hanged by non-religious people for refusing to renounce your faith. 

I must ponder for a while if I have ever met a faithful member of the church who is willing to receive doctrinal, theological, or spiritual light from a non-member, especially if and when that light is contrary to that of the church. Perhaps when someone feels a bit bad about denying someone like me any valid spiritual experience in my life, they roll out the "light of Christ" guilt reduction device. Well, after all, of course, Navidad, "you have the light of Christ. You are welcome to walk down the dark path as far as that light will take you." Then when you have gone as far as you can, come back to us and we will lead you the rest of the way down the path to where we are. That is why it was said (I guess), "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." There is never enough light for salvation. or certainly for exaltation of the non-member, no matter how faithful, no matter how much godliness or sanctification she manifests for the member or the missionary, even if they say there might be enough for favorable judgment by God, which may manifest itself in a telestial kingdom, with its absence of the presence of the Savior waiting for you. Congratulations . . . it really will be wonderful for you! Surely you don't expect any more, not having consented to the truths of our Church, which is by the way, "not the only repository of truth." Huh? It just makes my head spin! Uh oh, head spinning! Not a good sign! Ha! Best wishes to all. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stelf said:

In essence, I really truly believed what the church claims about itself as a result of these experiences.

We need, imo, to be very careful on how we define “the church” when we are trying to pinpoint what “the church” claims vs what individual leaders claim as well as what is actually taught as doctrine of the Church (which at this point may be incomplete or even inaccurate because what we—and this includes leaders—teach typically is our understanding of doctrine, we are interpreting doctrine while we teach it).

Different people are likely to have different rules defining doctrine, truth, claims, etc. depending on what talk or experience has made a greater impression on them, so I am not pushing this idea as the obvious, clear, plain truth even if at times it feels that way to me.  For example, a lot of people think of the song “Follow the Prophet” as supporting requiring the President of the Church to be viewed as The Church.  I can understand why they go there given what I see getting attached to the idea of follow the prophet.  For me, I hear the names of the different prophets listed in the song with their different revelations, teachings, and accomplishments and it reminds there have been many prophets over time.  We are also not limited to only one prophet at a time to follow as we accept the apostles as prophets in the line of authority (and if you are open to there being prophets outside of the line of authority like I am, the number could go significantly up, though I am more open about where follow is an appropriate term to be used for those outside the line of authority).  I believe when we speak of The Church, we need to include all the prophets in that line of authority as sources of official revelation and doctrine for the Church, but I also believe we need to add the requirement of unity in doctrine and claims among the ‘authorized’ prophets, not just one or even a few, even when the one is the President of the Church.  And I think I am on pretty solid ground here given what has been said over time by many leaders, summarized well here imo:

https://news-au.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

And even when something is claimed by the Church (leadership in unity), it isn’t necessarily actual doctrine, it often is interpretation of doctrine.  Some may think I am looking for nuance when the Church does not, but I think this brief video supports my interpretation in that it differentiates between doctrine, which is unchanging revealed eternal truths, and the understanding of doctrine, which changes overtime as the Spirit works with us.  This interaction with the Spirit will expose (according to the video) what is true doctrine….which implies there will be some nontruths (inaccuracies) that we thought were doctrine, but is not.  The video also did not differentiate between “us” as the general membership and “them” the top quorums of the Church, but seems to me used “us” as for all of humanity….which includes the prophets (whether presidents of the Church or apostles).  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-10-0150-what-is-doctrine?lang=eng

I see Ben’s three primary values of the Church (not saying there are only three, just that 3 were his focus) as doctrine that has been taught overtime from the beginning and still is being taught (thus meeting the consistency requirement) as well as taught in unity (unity requirement) plus I see it as core doctrine, something essential in our faith for members to grapple with.

If we use these three values of our faith as central defining concepts of our experience, I believe we can avoid quite a few struggles as well as avoid getting too locked into our personal interpretations we resist positive change when we get the opportunity for it.  Which leads me back to my original point where I believe we can mistakenly draw the circle of what are Church claims and what is Church doctrine too wide, so we end up trying to reconcile things we don’t really need to in ways that don’t leave us with peace.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

I appreciate this very much and as a paradigm I think it could work for me. However, it does not work for me within the teachings of the LDS church. 

You are of course free to disagree, but we indoctrinate our children to "Follow the Prophet" with a catchy song. President Nelson recently stated that prophets will always speak the truth. I think that claim is objectively false. So, then the question return as to how do we know what the prophets get right or wrong, and we are back to relying on the spirit to teach us the truth. 

As an experiment, please list 5 ways the claim is objectively false and 5 ways it is objectively true. For example, I'll give it a shot:

FALSE:

• They have spoken in error or have misspoken from time to time.
• They do not speak on all types and fields of truth.
• They may convey limited or abridged facts in support of their apostolic witness.
• They have changed their message based on changing revelation.
• They cannot "always" speak religious truth because they have to order from the takeout window.

TRUE

• "Always speaking the truth" leaves room to also always speak the bullets above -- they are not mutually exclusive.
• The "truth" here means the exercise of the keys of the kingdom which involves speaking the words of testimony and the ordinances.
• Moroni 10" 32 - 33, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." They always speak the truth by grace.
• It is understood that they speak the truth when they, the presiding councils, the scriptures agree and the hearer accepts it in good faith, and/or the Holy Ghost confirms it by companionship or specific witness.
• The 1st bullets counts for more than one  

 

[3DOP]

On 9/2/2025 at 1:01 PM, webbles said:

Honestly for me, I can count on one hand the number of times that I had an experience that I can definitely say came from God.  I'm too skeptical of my own experiences.  So, I don't really see spiritual experiences as a valid means to determine truth.

If I understand correctly, it is definitely a good trait in Catholic spirituality to be skeptical about our own subjective experiences.

Why else would the Church recommend that we observe rules for what is called in our lingo, "discerning of spirits"? 

On the other hand, I am seeing that the Church, through the Holy Spirit, is being guided more and more to seeing that modern man, more than before perhaps, needs an experience. An experience of Christ and His whole eternal history together with the Event; of His entry into out history as the Second Adam.

I am saying that to properly live a life faithful to Catholic beliefs, the Catholic needs what in LDS lingo is called "a testimony". This testimony does not prove the faith, but it can demonstrate to individuals that faith is reasonable.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

"The third trait of Mormonism is that idea that there is no universal standard by which everyone is judged, nor is the LDS Church the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He also noted "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." Mormon theology suggests that all are judged by their individual circumstances. There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases). Everyone is given an equal opportunity for salvation, even if we don't always understand how that opportunity presents itself. This functions both within the faith, and external to it. Even within the membership of the church, uniformity of belief and understanding is not a requirement for salvation."

I copied and pasted this part of Benjamin's message from a few hours ago. I love his post, but I can't figure out who he is quoting when. So, Benjamin, if you read this post, please tell me who you are quoting from in the very first sentence and in the last few sentences of this paragraph. Perhaps these are your own thoughts?

The two quotes at the beginning are from Joseph Smith:

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" is taken from a sermon Joseph Smith delivered on July 9, 1843.

"God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them" is taken from a synopsis of a sermon Joseph Smith delivered on May 21, 1843.

The rest of this is mine. I put it in a quote box because I originally wrote it for a guest blog post I was invited to write on Patheos on December 9, 2010. 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Whenever I read or listen to something like this from a faithful member of the LDS church, I just reflexively sit back in my chair and shake my head in amazement. If the church is not the only repository of truth, then I don't understand how it can be the only repository of power and authority. It cannot be the only church composed of the only individuals who are the only ones pleasing to Christ and Heavenly Father. Truth is the source of authority and power. 

This has always been a challenge for religion - the question of boundaries, and the question of situating faith and belief. Mormonism, in its infancy, really drew on its identity as a restorationist church - the idea that there was nothing new - that it was simply restoring a fullness that had previously existed. And yet, it became clear, as the revelations continued, that this was not simply a restorationist movement but a revelatory movement - and Mormonism has cast aside most of its early restorationist doctrines (even though they continue to have a deep influence on the Church). I would suggest that the LDS Church has never been the only repository of truth - and this was something that Joseph Smith understood. After all, no one in the earliest days of Mormonism would believe this idea - that the fledgling LDS Church was the only repository of truth. The early members pulled belief from many different sources. We have to remember that it would be some time before we really had any members of the LDS Church who hadn't begun their religious journeys as something other than Mormons. Only much later - as the LDS Church begins to have its own journey into orthodoxy and orthopraxy can we start to see this discussion about the LDS Church as a repository of truth. The idea of authority begins really with the introduction of the LDS temple theology - which doesn't reach its current form until well into the 20th century.

But this suggestion of yours is something that I also get from the LDS side of the discussion. I noted this in the last part of that blog post:

Quote

 

Not all Mormons will agree with this assessment. Some will say that salvation isn't as open ended as I have suggested, that all must be baptized (except perhaps for a few who can be characterized by their age or mental capacity). They may struggle with revelation as an agent of change. They may prefer absolutes to ambiguity. The hierarchy of church authority provides for them a security of knowing that I cannot offer. To them, Mormonism is decidedly not a post-modern faith.

We may not all be in agreement, but we can disagree and still share a salvific faith. From my perspective, embracing diversity is part of what has led to the growth of Mormonism. This diversity crosses social, ethnic, political, and economic barriers. It helps build narratives that give us a sense of purpose in our lives. It allows us to embrace ambiguity, to appreciate mystery, and to develop a mature faith that challenges us to change. In the words of a more recent leader of the church, Bruce Hafen, "I hope that I will never be so aware of ‘reality' that I am unresponsive to the whisperings of heaven."

 

I myself would never claim that the LDS Church is the only repository of truth. And I would argue that most of those who enter Mormonism's Celetsial Kingdom will never have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during their mortality. This ends up, of course, being a much larger discussion than the issues raised here.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I am saying that to properly live a life faithful to Catholic beliefs, the Catholic needs what in LDS lingo is called "a testimony". This testimony does not prove the faith, but it can demonstrate to individuals that faith is reasonable.

If there is something I envy the most about our Catholic brothers and sisters it is the idea that Catholicism has created the space for a rational belief that Mormonism is still struggling with. Some of the most influential voices of faith in my life have been Catholics, and without them, the world would be far more intellectually and spiritually impoverished.