Are Our Spiritual Experiences Superior?

[Stone holm]

Eloquent insight from changed. I'll have to remember that one.

Becoming God... now that is a superior spiritual experience!

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Eloquent insight from changed. I'll have to remember that one.

Becoming God... now that is a superior spiritual experience!

And we are the only church which teaches this is actually possible. That's why I'm here in fact. Men are theomorphic and God is anthropomorphic. We are gods in embryo, if we only recognize it. God is within us.

Edited May 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[pmccombs1]

And we are the only church which teaches this is actually possible. That's why I'm here in fact. Men are theomorphic and God is anthropomorphic. We are gods in embryo, if we only recognize it. God is within us.

Well the Eastern Orthodox have theosis through praxis, which is quite similar to the Mormon doctrine. I've heard some Catholics who have a good deal of disdain for it (they happened to be ex-mormon Catholics), while others of a more "mystical" bent were certainly seeking mystical unity with God (I thought of them as the more genuine). Other mystics seek for unity with Brahma, even if it is through the loss of the self. Through meditation, they seek to achieve it.

But I think you're right, and I see where you are coming from. The Mormon story tells us that we are more than what we seem, and that story has power to shape us. The patriarchal blessing provides a personalized window into it, and I think that has profoundly affected the lives of many.

A true story is one that has the power to change people. That is the power of a true religion, or a true church. So there is no question of "superior" relative to others' experience. There is simply "superior experience," because it is creative experience; and a lot of people find it in Mormonism. There are few places where you can find such stories. Our business is to find the best stories and bring them back.

[mfbukowski]

Well the Eastern Orthodox have theosis through praxis, which is quite similar to the Mormon doctrine. I've heard some Catholics who have a good deal of disdain for it (they happened to be ex-mormon Catholics), while others of a more "mystical" bent were certainly seeking mystical unity with God (I thought of them as the more genuine). Other mystics seek for unity with Brahma, even if it is through the loss of the self. Through meditation, they seek to achieve it.

But I think you're right, and I see where you are coming from. The Mormon story tells us that we are more than what we seem, and that story has power to shape us. The patriarchal blessing provides a personalized window into it, and I think that has profoundly affected the lives of many.

A true story is one that has the power to change people. That is the power of a true religion, or a true church. So there is no question of "superior" relative to others' experience. There is simply "superior experience," because it is creative experience; and a lot of people find it in Mormonism. There are few places where you can find such stories. Our business is to find the best stories and bring them back.

As I understand it theosis is sharing in God's divinity, not Becoming God

[pmccombs1]

As I understand it theosis is sharing in God's divinity, not Becoming God

I believe trinitarians think of it as more of a mystical union; it's a oneness with God and a sharing of God's consciousness and thoughts. Perhaps that is "sharing in God's divinity."

Whatever the case may be, some are drawn to that particular story. Others are drawn to the Mormon view. There are many other powerful stories that attract adherents and cause them to live a certain way and to have specific experiences.

Our experiences are defined by the possibilities our stories teach us to believe in. I have no doubt that there are those on this board who have seen Jesus or have spoken with the Father. Their story informs them that this is possible, but it also tells them that such things are esoteric, and that's probably why we don't hear much about them. Other religions tell different stories about how one might experience God, and so it is typical for those believers to have experiences of that nature. There is usually a notion of what the highest, "superior," experience is, and when that is achieved, it is supreme. The individual can imagine nothing greater--whether it is speaking with God face-to-face, a mystical union, a feeling that one has been saved, a losing of self in Nirvana, etc. Whatever it is, it often gives certainty and comfort. Occasionally you'll have someone who jumps paradigms, usually through some vision, but I've found that to be pretty rare. I have even encountered a couple of people who have discovered the various kinds of experiences that are possible and jump from one paradigm to the next. They get deep into it, maybe even join the church or group, enjoy the experiences that come from its sincere practice, then move on once they feel they've received the most that story has to offer. They try to "resonate" with the story rather than the other way around.

Many people start out in a similar fashion, "shopping around" for truth until they find something that "resonates" with them. But they always settle when they find the right story, which is the one that is either most plausible or most desirable (or enough of both). That's the story that yields up the most powerful, superior experience. That is the truth, because it works. It's the only way to know truth of that kind.

[mfbukowski]

Many people start out in a similar fashion, "shopping around" for truth until they find something that "resonates" with them. But they always settle when they find the right story, which is the one that is either most plausible or most desirable (or enough of both). That's the story that yields up the most powerful, superior experience. That is the truth, because it works. It's the only way to know truth of that kind.

I am not disagreeing with any of this really, but I had my experiences before I had a clue of what they were "supposed to be" and later was shocked at how much my story cohered with others.

I am convinced there was something not from me in these experiences, any more than my creating falling off a cliff. But of course the interpretation of experience can only come from the beholder.

But after all, that is what we call "faith".

I recently heard a good definition of "faith" from a total agnostic- Richard Rorty. He defined it very simply as a "hope for something better". I found that remarkably scriptural coming from an agnostic. - "The substance of things hoped for but not seen"

[CV75]

I am not disagreeing with any of this really, but I had my experiences before I had a clue of what they were "supposed to be" and later was shocked at how much my story cohered with others.

I am convinced there was something not from me in these experiences, any more than my creating falling off a cliff. But of course the interpretation of experience can only come from the beholder.

But after all, that is what we call "faith".

I recently heard a good definition of "faith" from a total agnostic- Richard Rorty. He defined it very simply as a "hope for something better". I found that remarkably scriptural coming from an agnostic. - "The substance of things hoped for but not seen"

And I'm sure that the coherence with others' experiences was not only over what the experieinces "were supposed to be," but what the interpreation of those experiences were as well, and you knew this before you knew how others interrepeted their same experiences.

[Avatar4321]

Yes, so when an FLDS member says they know by the spirit that Warren Jeffs is a prophet and a mormon member say they know by the spirit that Joseph Smith is a prophet, whose spiritual experience is correct? Or is God contradicting himself?

Ill let you know when I hear one say that.

The only time Ive ever heard someone say that God told them that the Book of Mormon wasn't true was in the context of them trying to mock revelations from the Holy Spirit. It was obvious from the tone and context that they never asked God, they were just trying to make a point and win an argument as they saw it. They had no desire to actually learn the truth.

I know many people who have had experiences far greater than my own. But I didn't experience their experiences. Only mine. So I will continue to let mine guide me. Because I know if I have faith in the Lord, He will not lead me astray.

[Avatar4321]

Emotion is not the Spirit and never has been.

One of the reasons it's always irritated me when people act like the Spirit is just a feeling and then try to lecture me on what the Holy Spirit is like.

it's one of my pet peeves, though I've been trying very hard to be less annoyed by it. and more charitable to those who might act that way.

[Avatar4321]

Yes, why would God contradict himself? And would it not be natural for someone investigating religions to say, "hm, these different religions are saying you can know the truth by praying and feeling the spirit, yet by doing this there are many different people who have felt the spirit tell them many different contradicting religions and doctrines are true, so maybe I should look at what the religions teach and analyze their truth claims to come to my conclusion, alongside my own praying and feeling the spirit." Would we advise such an investigator against analyzing truth claims of different religions including our own? Would we tell the investigator that the members of other religions who thought they prayed about the truth and felt the spirit confirm it were wrong? How else do we teach investigators that our religion is the one and only Church of God with the complete truth and authority without discounting the spiritual experiences of other religious people about the truth of their church leaders, doctrines, and religions?

Can you name another faith that says you can know the truth by praying? Because in my investigation, we are it. Something I've always found odd. In fact, alot of people found it offensive to suggest you could ask God whether their faith is true.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Avatar4321

[Stone holm]

One of the reasons it's always irritated me when people act like the Spirit is just a feeling and then try to lecture me on what the Holy Spirit is like.

it's one of my pet peeves, though I've been trying very hard to be less annoyed by it. and more charitable to those who might act that way.

So then if you disagree with what they say the Spirit told them, you classify their experience as.....

[Avatar4321]

So then if you disagree with what they say the Spirit told them, you classify their experience as.....

No I disagree with mocking the Spirit and how He works and then turning around and trying to act as if you have had an experience with Him. He probably doesnt like that either.

[ERayR]

Ill let you know when I hear one say that.

The only time Ive ever heard someone say that God told them that the Book of Mormon wasn't true was in the context of them trying to mock revelations from the Holy Spirit. It was obvious from the tone and context that they never asked God, they were just trying to make a point and win an argument as they saw it. They had no desire to actually learn the truth.

I know many people who have had experiences far greater than my own. But I didn't experience their experiences. Only mine. So I will continue to let mine guide me. Because I know if I have faith in the Lord, He will not lead me astray.

My experience also. My daughter-in-law, who converted, said about her experience: "If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question".

[ERayR]

One of the reasons it's always irritated me when people act like the Spirit is just a feeling and then try to lecture me on what the Holy Spirit is like.

it's one of my pet peeves, though I've been trying very hard to be less annoyed by it. and more charitable to those who might act that way.

Or they say something like: Tell me what it feels like.

Edited May 28, 2013 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

And I'm sure that the coherence with others' experiences was not only over what the experieinces "were supposed to be," but what the interpreation of those experiences were as well, and you knew this before you knew how others interrepeted their same experiences.

Yep.

I had had one conversation about Mormonism centering on the notion of eternal progression, I had read a bit out of a comparative religion book on the same subject, and I received a BOM the night before and had only read Moroni 10:4-5.

I was stunned by that passage and it kept going around and around in my mind.

I had never heard of "burning in the bosom" or anything like that at all.-- not to mention anything in the culture. I didn't know green jello from funeral potatoes or that you were supposed to cry when feeling "The Spirit". I had never been to a sacrament meeting and had no idea what a "testimony" was other than something you gave in court.

And yet I felt all the classic symptoms in spades. Cried like a baby- we are talkin serious boo-hoo here, not some wimpy tearing up

[pmccombs1]

I am not disagreeing with any of this really, but I had my experiences before I had a clue of what they were "supposed to be" and later was shocked at how much my story cohered with others.

I am convinced there was something not from me in these experiences, any more than my creating falling off a cliff.

I think this is a necessary part of the formula. Unless the one who experiences believes that the experience is real, i.e., that it originates outside of them, the story is impotent and therefore not true. It can't keep them for long; the experiences aren't strong enough. Usually the convert (Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, or what have you) will tell me that what he found in his prior faith he thought was "good," but that it utterly pales in comparison to the new faith, which is very, very real to him... even beyond real, as some attempt to explain. Everything just came together; the pieces now fit. The light went on, stuff makes sense. There is vision and clarity and community. Fear and uncertainty are lost; the person wants to laugh and cry at once, because now they see and have lost their doubt and they have no words to explain it. They only "knew" before, whereas now they Know. Above all, there is the feeling of wholeness and rightness. Those are the components of a "superior" experience. It fills the whole mind with joy and it didn't seem to come from within.

That is the great difficulty of the so-called "paradigm pirates" that I mentioned before. They must discover how to obtain the conviction that the religious experience has an external source, but then extract themselves from it after having experienced it. That just isn't natural to man, and it's very much frowned upon (one might say it is to "deny the Holy Ghost" after having received it), which is why I'm skeptical that such people exist or that they are truly as effective as they claim to be at sampling from all of the available options. If you are able to have the experience while understanding that it will be real and yet not real, then the possibility of ever having any such an experience is probably remote. It's like being awake and asleep at the same time.

But after all, that is what we call "faith".

I recently heard a good definition of "faith" from a total agnostic- Richard Rorty. He defined it very simply as a "hope for something better". I found that remarkably scriptural coming from an agnostic. - "The substance of things hoped for but not seen"

I'm not at all surprised to hear that sort of thing from a proper agnostic. Some people think that faith increases with certainty, but actually it increases with desire. How worthy is a thing? Is it worth having faith in? So there are agnostics who are very faithful for the reason that they are without knowledge but full of admiration and hope. Agnostics get a bad name from "soft atheists" who call themselves agnostics because the proposition of God is untestable and unknowable to them, but they are still pretty sure there isn't one.

[pmccombs1]

Can you name another faith that says you can know the truth by praying? Because in my investigation, we are it. Something I've always found odd. In fact, alot of people found it offensive to suggest you could ask God whether their faith is true.

Well, Richard Innes, who writes for a non-denominational Christian site wrote a piece on prayer that included a section devoted to praying for truth:

Praying for the truth is one of the most effective ways of praying I know. Sometimes I don't want to see the truth since it might be frightening or embarrassing so I tell God that I am willing to be made willing to see it—whatever it might be.

Whenever I have prayed this way, I have always had this prayer answered. Sometimes the answer comes quickly, other times slowly. It usually depends on when I am ready to receive it.

He didn't seem concerned that a general Christian audience would take offense at that notion.

The Pentecostals are big on this point in particular, along with Mormons.

When I once chatted with an Eastern Orthodox priest about the matter, he acknowledged that asking God for truth was a given, but that it also had to be accompanied by solid reason, history, and tradition. He thought that Mormons relied too much on that particular plank and surmised that it was perhaps because we didn't have much of anything else to stand on.

[sunstoned]

That isn't how I think the Lord does marriage inspiration. He requires that people make their own decisions and then He confirms them. If He were to tell people to marry X, then who do you think would get the blame if the marriage didn't turn out good? And that would be a stumbling block to solving whatever struggles there are in a marriage.

There, fixed that for you. This lady discribles the same type of spiritual experience as LDS do. You reject her experience because it doesn't aline with your religious point of view? '

[mfbukowski]

Well the fact is, that a good Pragmatist would not care one bit if his experiences were "real" or "all in his mind" since it really doesn't matter which it is.

What matters is how your life changes, since all we know is created by humans in one way or another. It all came out of a human brain/mind/body/spirit- either our own or Shakespeare's or Copernicus- or even Dawkins or the apostle Paul. All we know came out of a human sometime somewhere- our own minds included.

In that sense we are all already Gods organizing our own universes from matter unorganized. Perhaps that is the brilliance of the Mormon Man of Holiness. Perhaps he really IS inside each of us- and IS us individually. There's a little Buddhism in there for you!

But I don't know that I am that good a Pragmatist.

[mfbukowski]

Praying for the truth is one of the most effective ways of praying I know. Sometimes I don't want to see the truth since it might be frightening or embarrassing so I tell God that I am willing to be made willing to see it—whatever it might be.

Whenever I have prayed this way, I have always had this prayer answered. Sometimes the answer comes quickly, other times slowly. It usually depends on when I am ready to receive it.

Were I still an agnostic I would say that he was simply speaking to his "ideal self" and being totally honest in confronting his own internal conflicts, which provided him with a "solution" - he was addressing his own unconscious, which solved his "problem".

But that was the old "me".

[Avatar4321]

Well, Richard Innes, who writes for a non-denominational Christian site wrote a piece on prayer that included a section devoted to praying for truth:

Praying for the truth is one of the most effective ways of praying I know. Sometimes I don't want to see the truth since it might be frightening or embarrassing so I tell God that I am willing to be made willing to see it—whatever it might be.

Whenever I have prayed this way, I have always had this prayer answered. Sometimes the answer comes quickly, other times slowly. It usually depends on when I am ready to receive it.

He didn't seem concerned that a general Christian audience would take offense at that notion.

The Pentecostals are big on this point in particular, along with Mormons.

When I once chatted with an Eastern Orthodox priest about the matter, he acknowledged that asking God for truth was a given, but that it also had to be accompanied by solid reason, history, and tradition. He thought that Mormons relied too much on that particular plank and surmised that it was perhaps because we didn't have much of anything else to stand on.

I dont see him suggesting that you pray to know whether the Gospel is true or whether his particular faith is true. But that is alot closer than many I've talked to. I suggested praying to know whether the Bible is true to many people before and was treated as though that was blasphemy from a number of people. I don't understand that. I mean if the Bible is true, then praying to find the Truth should be obvious.

[CV75]

And yet I felt all the classic symptoms in spades.

Same here--and all I had to go by was the "Testimony of Joseph Smith" pamphlet my older brother left in the house. And I certainly did not expect to see the Father and Son (which I didn't!) when praying about which Church to join.

Because I was a minor, I was prevented from attendfing church or visiting with the misssionaries, but I easily recognized D&C 9:8 when I read it years later. And I was never dissuaded from joining the Church, though I had to wait 5 years.

[pmccombs1]

I dont see him suggesting that you pray to know whether the Gospel is true or whether his particular faith is true. But that is alot closer than many I've talked to. I suggested praying to know whether the Bible is true to many people before and was treated as though that was blasphemy from a number of people. I don't understand that. I mean if the Bible is true, then praying to find the Truth should be obvious.

No, it isn't obvious. A lot of Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy, and they already "know" the Bible is true. There has to be some Ground Truth for them to start from; some axiomatic foundation. Why would one ask a question they already know the answer to? Suggesting such a thing to them is like asking them to tempt God. How do they know the Bible is true? Why should it be the starting point? Some of them think it stands to reason, others find it reliable and trustworthy. All of them recognize the voice of God in it, and in any case, for them it is the "standard of standards." The Bible itself says to ask God for truth, so in the end, it means to trust in the Bible. So, by following that advice, they would already be presuming the truth of the Bible anyway, which they already do in following other Biblical precepts to good effect. So I suppose when a Mormon tells them that they might "test" God about the Bible itself, it's probably a little bit offensive. The Bible is the First Cause of all reason; it's fundamental, and is therefore the beginning of epistemology. Following the Bible's advice and asking God to discover the truth of the Bible is begging the question and rather audacious. They simply accept it on the grounds I have explained.

This doesn't mean that other Christian churches do not apply the injunction to ask God for further knowledge and truth, or that they don't get the guidance of the Holy Ghost. They do it, and He confirms their faith and sets them in their paths.

But, for us Mormons, praying and asking the truth of things is axiomatic. That's where we begin. That's part of our story, and is possibly one of the things that allows us to say that "Ours is the only church that has ___________." Of course, Chesterton said the same of the Catholic church, only he filled in that blank with other things that he felt were important.

I suppose the intent of the OP was to discover if there is a provably "superior" way to fill in that blank. Yes there is, but it's an individual matter. As Akbar the Great once observed, it is unjustified to assert the truth of one religion over another. This is true, for in doing so we say that one subjective experience is superior to another. That, naturally, cannot be known.

The real answer to the question, "are our spiritual experiences superior?", is, "Yes. To us they are, because only we have our experiences." And anyone who has such an experience is justified in claiming that very same answer regardless of whether or not his or her experience appears to lead to a different conclusion than the experience of another. What greater witness can you have than from God? But if we presume to assert superiority by comparing our experiences to those of others, we can't do it. It doesn't matter if once one was a Catholic and now one is a Mormon (or vice-versa). The fact of conversion doesn't make anybody an authority on comparative spirituality except in their own, personal sphere. There are converts who go in all directions.

[mfbukowski]

Same here--and all I had to go by was the "Testimony of Joseph Smith" pamphlet my older brother left in the house. And I certainly did not expect to see the Father and Son (which I didn't!) when praying about which Church to join.

Because I was a minor, I was prevented from attendfing church or visiting with the misssionaries, but I easily recognized D&C 9:8 when I read it years later. And I was never dissuaded from joining the Church, though I had to wait 5 years.

I suspected we had a lot in common!

Those kind of experiences can never be denied. They are life changing

[mfbukowski]

This doesn't mean that other Christian churches do not apply the injunction to ask God for further knowledge and truth, or that they don't get the guidance of the Holy Ghost. They do it, and He confirms their faith and sets them in their paths.

But, for us Mormons, praying and asking the truth of things is axiomatic. That's where we begin. That's part of our story, and is possibly one of the things that allows us to say that "Ours is the only church that has ___________." Of course, Chesterton said the same of the Catholic church, only he filled in that blank with other things that he felt were important.

I suppose the intent of the OP was to discover if there is a provably "superior" way to fill in that blank. Yes there is, but it's an individual matter. As Akbar the Great once observed, it is unjustified to assert the truth of one religion over another. This is true, for in doing so we say that one subjective experience is superior to another. That, naturally, cannot be known.

The real answer to the question, "are our spiritual experiences superior?", is, "Yes. To us they are, because only we have our experiences." And anyone who has such an experience is justified in claiming that very same answer regardless of whether or not his or her experience appears to lead to a different conclusion than the experience of another. What greater witness can you have than from God? But if we presume to assert superiority by comparing our experiences to those of others, we can't do it. It doesn't matter if once one was a Catholic and now one is a Mormon (or vice-versa). The fact of conversion doesn't make anybody an authority on comparative spirituality except in their own, personal sphere. There are converts who go in all directions.

Well said!