Spiritual experiences in other religions

[daz2]

So if I were to question the spiritual experience of say, Warren Jeffs, in regards to him marrying a 13 year-old girl, I would be arrogant and engaging in religious snobbery?

If a person questioned the experience of Abraham in being commanded to kill his son as a human sacrifice to God, would he/she be arrogant and engaging in anti-Abrahamic snobbery?

If a person questioned the experience of Nephi in being commanded to kill an inebriated man, would he/she be arrogant and engaging in anti-Book-of-Mormon snobbery?

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

Greetings from Sodom and Gomorrah. I be doing well, now if our weather will stabilize I'd be even better. Weather changes really hurt on my prosthetic shoulder.

Kinda. The LDS do not normally use such terminology. So if I come off stilted it is just from the lack of use in how our good Catholic friends use the terms. I guess in a way you could say that we are ALL immaculately conceived.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

Greetings from Sodom and Gomorrah. I be doing well, now if our weather will stabilize I'd be even better. Weather changes really hurt on my prosthetic shoulder.

Kinda. The LDS do not normally use such terminology. So if I come off stilted it is just from the lack of use in how our good Catholic friends use the terms. I guess in a way you could say that we are ALL immaculately conceived.

You have made my day! Thanks...wow...I don't have any prosthetics but boy I sure feel the aches and pains. Writing and checking in as I get off and on the treadmill. My poor knee has this fluid over it. I can feel it. I can't go above about 2.3 miles an hour. Anyway...nuff treadmill. I'm thinking that it isn't the prosthetic shoulder that hurts but the real you, just like me. Heh. Anyway...thanks so much for your consideration of a wild sounding idea, that at second glance, isn't maybe as crazy as it sounds. Its so great to agree. Have a good day. Nap time for the old bones.

Rory

[caudicus]

The most conservative estimates indicate that Joseph entered into plural marriages with 29

[maupayman]

I'm not LDS I am Restoration RLDS (NOT Community of Christ) and I make no apologies for proclaiming the truth. Immaculate Conception and the Rosary are two examples of false Catholic doctrine that proves those apparitions are not from God, if you don't like it, lump it.

Ah yes, how could I have mistaken you for being from such a vastly different group. You all sound the same. Let me guess, God has confirmed to you that the RLDS is true?

[saemo]

A recent thread explored spiritual experiences and asked us to think about what experiences might be exclusive to LDS.

I would like to explore the same topic but from the other direction.

Visions and visitations of the Virgin Mary are well documented and many have been examined and approved by the Roman Catholic Church. Many are accompanied by miracle healings and specific instruction from the Blessed Virgin Mary such as the use of the Rosary. In some, the visiting person identified herself as

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ah yes, how could I have mistaken you for being from such a vastly different group. You all sound the same. Let me guess, God has confirmed to you that the RLDS is true?

No, not exactly... but I did receive an experience back in 2001 letting me know that is where He would like me at that point. Until I am instructed differently that is where I will remain.

[SilverKnight]

Kiviuq- I would like to point out that apparitions of the Virgin Mary are many, and varied. Not all are approved by the Catholic Church. Stating that a vision is valid does not mean that all Catholics are bound to what is taught in the vision. ie, a Catholic can go their whole life never reciting the rosary and never following any of these visions. They aren't doctrine.

These apparitions are considered personal revelations, that are not binding on the whole Church. A faithful and committed Catholic is not required to believe them or follow anything to do with them. Each person is free to discern God's will for themselves. If a person finds an approved vision useful to their own spiritual practices, then that is a personal choice.

Applying that concept to Smith's visions isn't possible, as Mormons (all) are absolutely required to accept his visions as binding on everyone.

Are Catholics required to accept the Pope as God's authorized mouthpiece on the earth?

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

That is pretty much how it is for the LDS too.

No we are not required to believe every Vision of JS(or any other man). No one man has the authority to determine doctrine within the Church. Only those Visions and Utterances of in the Church that are binding on the Church are found within our Scriptures. Plus it is a very strict process for new revelation to become doctrine.

[Kiviuq]

Kiviuq- I would like to point out that apparitions of the Virgin Mary are many, and varied. Not all are approved by the Catholic Church. Stating that a vision is valid does not mean that all Catholics are bound to what is taught in the vision. ie, a Catholic can go their whole life never reciting the rosary and never following any of these visions. They aren't doctrine.

These apparitions are considered personal revelations, that are not binding on the whole Church. A faithful and committed Catholic is not required to believe them or follow anything to do with them. Each person is free to discern God's will for themselves. If a person finds an approved vision useful to their own spiritual practices, then that is a personal choice.

Applying that concept to Smith's visions isn't possible, as Mormons (all) are absolutely required to accept his visions as binding on everyone.

I appreciate your comments. I really wasn

[saemo]

I appreciate your comments. I really wasn

[CV75]

Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.

I hope they are helpful. Focusing on how others might evaluate another person

[3DOP]

I appreciate your comments. I really wasn

[saemo]

Are Catholics required to accept the Pope as God's authorized mouthpiece on the earth?

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret this. It is worded in a Mormon kind of way, that makes me think you are asking if the Pope is a prophet. Which the answer to that is: Some popes have had prophetic gifts, but it is not required that they do, or that Catholics believe they should.

If that is not what you are asking then maybe you can clarify.

Thanks.

[3DOP]

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret this. It is worded in a Mormon kind of way, that makes me think you are asking if the Pope is a prophet. Which the answer to that is: Some popes have had prophetic gifts, but it is not required that they do, or that Catholics believe they should.

If that is not what you are asking then maybe you can clarify.

Thanks.

For what it is worth, I second that. I kind of wanted to answer too, but had doubts about what it meant, so I had decided to let it go.

[SilverKnight]

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret this. It is worded in a Mormon kind of way, that makes me think you are asking if the Pope is a prophet. Which the answer to that is: Some popes have had prophetic gifts, but it is not required that they do, or that Catholics believe they should.

If that is not what you are asking then maybe you can clarify.

Thanks.

For what it is worth, I second that. I kind of wanted to answer too, but had doubts about what it meant, so I had decided to let it go.

Let me clarify:

You indicated that apparitions of the virgin Mary are not all approved by the Catholic Church, and Catholics are not bound to accept any.

My first question is then: are there any visions, miracles or papal revelations that are officially recognized? Are Catholics bound to accept them in any way?

I understand that to become beatified, the prospective saint has to be associated with a recorded miracle. There seems to be a degree of formal canonization when it comes to miracles, visions and the like.

I would guess that these types of miraculous events are treated in a similar way as LDS miracles/visions: they are taught as real events - divine supernatural miracles that actually occurred.

I don't see a terrible amount of difference between this and the miraculous foundational events of mormonism.

Also you said:

Applying that concept to Smith's visions isn't possible, as Mormons (all) are absolutely required to accept his visions as binding on everyone.

First of all, nobody is obliged to accept the vision of Joseph Smith or face some sort of consequence - though the concept of the restoration is rather the whole point of the LDS religion, and if one does not believe it happened there is little reason to remain a practicing mormon.

My question about the Pope has to do with the degree Catholics are allowed to accept/reject the Pope as the ecclesiastical head of their church, and his relationship with God.

Popes seem to fill a role similar to that of the LDS Prophet: the chief "high priest" of the clergy, and the person authorized to receive divine communication from God.

So when a pope receives divine communication, revelation, or feels God has given him a message for Catholics - are Catholics obliged to accept it?

Again, I expect that the degree they are, or are not, expected to accept what the Pope reveals to them mirrors the way mormons are to accept/reject the messages/revelations/visions of The LDS Prophet in just about every respect.

Your statements made it sound like you were saying "Catholics can believe whatever miracles they want. Mormons must believe the miracles of Joseph Smith."

In reality, it seems like Catholics are encouraged to believe their Pope in exactly the same way LDS believe their Prophet.

[saemo]

SilverKnight- Catholics and most Christians understand that Jesus Christ is the definitive and final public Revelation. God's Word Revealed in its fullest. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and there is no other. So, when you are speaking about "revelation", I still think you are defining something that is not believed by Catholics (and most Christians).

Apparitions are personal revelations, which is why they are not binding on the Church as a whole. They are for the benefit of that person, not the entire Church.

Regarding the Church itself, Christ gave to the Church the gift of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost. What Catholics call the birthday of the Church. As described in the NT, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are numerous. Catholics believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit should be used to benefit Christ's Church.

As for the Bishops, of which the Pope is one (the Bishop of Rome), they lead the Church, in communion with each other. Yes, Catholics believe and accept that the Holy Spirit provides the gifts necessary to lead Christ's Church. The Pope is accepted as the successor to St. Peter, on whom the Church was built and the keys were given. But the Pope does not act alone, he is in communion with all the bishops, the clergy and laity. In the sense we view ourselves as the Body of Christ, a pilgrim Church, as One.

So, what must I accept from the Pope? New doctrine would never be accepted. That would imply that Christ left something out, which is not acceptable (even blasphemous). Bringing understanding to existing doctrines, is accepted. Guiding the Church and the all the faithful through the ages, bringing people to Salvation, that is the role of the Catholic Church. The Pope is given the gifts of the Holy Spirit to accomplish this. When I was baptized Catholic, I first accepted Jesus Christ, it then followed that I acknowledged His Church as the Kingdom of God, on earth. It follows that I accept the Pope as the head of a communion of Bishops and leading the faithful. But! My first allegiance is to Jesus Christ, who is the only High Priest of His Church. There is no other.

Hope that clarifies the Catholic position.

Comparing to Mormonism, as I see it, one must accept the private revelation of Joseph Smith in order to be baptized. It is asked of a prospective convert, if they believe Smith to be a prophet.

There is no such question posed to a person who is converting to Catholicism. Not once was it ever asked of me what I believed or did not believe about the Pope. These are the questions that was asked:

Do you reject Satan?

And all his works?

And all his empty promises?

Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?

[SilverKnight]

Hope that clarifies the Catholic position.

It does. Thanks.

[Questing Beast]

I see no difference in spiritual experiences inside or outside of Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, whathaveyou. They manifest according to the training, culture and expectation of the receiver. "God" does not seem to make any distinctions according to religion. Even those who associate with NO religion have spiritual experiences, even "revelations"; or call them epiphanies because such occurrences are life-changing....

[jadams_4242]

I see no difference in spiritual experiences inside or outside of Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, whathaveyou. They manifest according to the training, culture and expectation of the receiver. "God" does not seem to make any distinctions according to religion. Even those who associate with NO religion have spiritual experiences, even "revelations"; or call them epiphanies because such occurrences are life-changing....

oh of course not. but we have them with great power and glory in the temple, baptism by immersion, preisthood blessings when worthily done......these are things that "only" be attributable to the l.d.s church... nobody else receives powerfull temple confirmations beyond description because they beleive not in them and the righteuossnes required to enter therin.

[Calm]

I think it is kind of neat in a way, that if Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception in spoonfuls, Mormons believe in it by the bucket!

Just reading through the thread for the first time...I love this! I think I'm going to use it the next time someone I know states the Immaculate Conception concept incorrectly (applying it not to Mary in most cases, but Christ).

[Calm]

The only 'concrete' source for which I have to judge someone else's spiritual experience is the effect that experience has on that individual. If that spiritual experience has led that person to do good than I am perfectly comfortable with saying that I may not understand how, what or why, but I am open to the possibility that the ultimate source of spiritual experience was from God (note the use of "source" as opposed to "interpretation").

I believe that God speaks to people in ways that they will understand and absorb his truths most effectively and that he will therefore likely use different methods of teaching for different individuals. "Line upon line" implies that God is not teaching us the whole story each time he speaks to us, but rather building on our past experiences and knowledge when he gives us more. Sometimes this means he is adding to our knowledge base with new information, other times it is more that he is confirming or denying the truth of our current understanding.

The problem in understanding someone's description of their personal spiritual experience then arises on discerning what in the vision is leading to more truth or if there is some 'contamination' from the false traditions of our fathers and society around us that has been absorbed perhaps even too deeply to be aware of enough to change (as opposed to just reversing our stance on the truthfulness of our understanding as it appears happened to Saul/Paul where he understood what he was fighting against and through the vision came to accept it as truth and his previous position as false rather than coming to a completely new understanding totally unrelated to what he had believed prior to that vision).

I also accept the possiblity that visions are not simply limited to God's 'input' but our limited mortal minds shape what he has sent us into 'acceptable' form.  So I don't take it upon myself to say that in any particular case there was no communication involved between God and the individual claiming that communication, especially if I see actions that God would approve of resulting from that person's experience (devoting oneself to serving others, forsaking vices or abusive behaviours, increase in one's ability to love and receive love, etc.)

Therefore in looking at others' spiritual experiences, it is best imo to use them for ourselves---if we address them in that way at all---to see if they can lead us to greater understanding of our own truths and possible identification of our own held false understandings and belief. I see little good come from examining others' beliefs to see what is wrong in them, I have enough 'wrongs' to correct in my life already that I see no need to go looking for them in others' lives....If I see claimed spiritual experiences being used to support behaviours I believe are wicked (or more likely self-destructive) and a person's behaviour deterioates after experiencing such, then that would be an appropriate time to speak against them...but it would require I have specific knowledge of the individual involved and what  the claims were and not some generic or broad description from a second or third party reporting one side of the equation to me and asking for my opinion on whether or not the spiritual experience actually occurred or what was the ultimate source of it.

Hope this makes sense, it started out as several disjointed thoughts that I tried to pull together into one coherent discussion but who knows....

[Questing Beast]

oh of course not. but we have them with great power and glory in the temple, baptism by immersion, preisthood blessings when worthily done......these are things that "only" be attributable to the l.d.s church... nobody else receives powerfull temple confirmations beyond description because they beleive not in them and the righteuossnes required to enter therin.

And the pilgrims at Mecca have their Kaaba and the Jews have their future temple (and Messiah and "chosen people" status) and the Catholics have their 2K year-old ascendant position and the Protestants have their Reformed (more correct) dogma and the FLDS have their direct line to John Taylor (i.e. their rigor in adhering to "the principle" meaning that only THEY will get the CK, since that requires polygamy in this life, etc) and the Wiccans have their traditional spiritual connection with the original religion (oldest of them all) and the Buddhists have their ancient wisdom and the Hindus have their pantheon to answer every needful thing that crops up in daily life and the non affiliated have their independence to pursue "God" however they please, etc....

[Questing Beast]

...I also accept the possiblity that visions are not simply limited to God's 'input' but our limited mortal minds shape what he has sent us into 'acceptable' form.  So I don't take it upon myself to say that in any particular case there was no communication involved between God and the individual claiming that communication, especially if I see actions that God would approve of resulting from that person's experience (devoting oneself to serving others, forsaking vices or abusive behaviours, increase in one's ability to love and receive love, etc.)....

(what the heck is " "? Edited for profanity.

This is the central problem/challenge in judging the experiences claimed by others to have been visited by "God". Imho, the only criteria, as you say, is action (fruit). A changed person changes their behavior. And if that behavior is good where it was "bad", or better than it was before because of some epiphany then that's good enough for me.

The egocentric universe of the soul has direct connection to "God" eternally. No other soul is in contact with that communication channel. So it is actually impossible for any of us to judge the truth claims of any other individual to revelation (spiritual experiences): all we can go by is whether or not said-claims produce the "fruit" of changed behavior. But if that behavior actually becomes worse then I have to accept that that person is deluding himself into receiving "permission" from "God" to misbehave. Only I am the judge of what I define as misbehavior. If I see it, then I am not to follow it. To follow suit would be to deny my own ethic for judging truth as it is "revealed" to me. (and thus we arrive at the core problem I have with following Joseph Smith as THE prophet of the "restoration": I do not accept his polyandry as remotely "God-given"....)

[LeSellers]

(what the heck is " "? edit)

It's the ASCII code for HTML code for a non-breaking space.

Sometimes a browser doesn't parse the code well.

Lehi