Differentiating Between The Spirit And Our Own Thoughts

[TheSkepticChristian]

The problem here is thinking there is an objective standard of truth and goodness against which we measure a particular case

 

and agnostics agree with you

 

 

I think Elder B was saying that the spirit communicates with us situationally telling us what action is best for each of us in a given situation. If we are worthy and trying to seek the spirit we will make right choices.

 

I am a confused LDS that is still trying to know the difference between the spirit and emotions. What you say doesn't help.

Are you saying that if we make the right choices, it means that it was the spirit?

and if we make the wrong choices, it was just our own though?

 

I agree miracles happen, there are millions of faithful Christians and billions of events that happen everyday on the planet, so an extraodinary miracle is bound to happen somewhere, but Elder Todd Christofferson said that a spiritual testimony " will not even come from witnessing miracles."

 

I really hope someday I can know the difference between my own thoughs and the spirit.

[HappyJackWagon]

Again you are assuming that the Spirit gives us objective truth independent of circumstances. The Spirit gives us what we need to learn regardless of if we see it as good or bad as in the moment. Think of Adam and Eve and the fall. Was the fall a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on how you look at it.

So we just assume (have faith) that one day following our intuition/prompting will lead to something good, no matter how much damage or harm it causes in the short term?

 

Here's an example- A bishop is inspired to council an abused wife to stay with her husband, go to counseling, and work things out. She follows the counsel but continues to be abused. Her children also become victims of abuse. Eventually the wife dies at the hands of her abusive husband and the kids go into foster care while the husband goes to jail. We might ask, "was the bishop's counsel to the woman inspired?"

 

And the answer would be, even though we see this as a bad result at the moment, the prompting/inspiration of the spirit will eventually be proven to be exactly what God wanted for the individual's personal growth in the long term? Would the benefit be for the good of the husband, the wife, the kids, or the bishop?

 

I definitely do not have that much trust in the ability of human's to correctly interpret/distinguish the direction of a prompting versus their own philosophy and ideas.

[Ahab]

...

I really hope someday I can know the difference between my own thoughts and the spirit.

Your thoughts will always include thoughts you get or got from the spirit AND thoughts you get or got from the adversary. No way around that. Your job is to choose which of your thoughts you will act upon, becoming an agent to one or the other or both. The thoughts you like will usually be the thoughts you will act upon and by your own experience you will see whether or not you like the results. If you don't like a thought you can always reject it. You can change your mind at any time.

Someday you will be judged by what you chose to do. And all of the thoughts that led you to do what you chose to do will have come from whoever you thought had given you the best thoughts, whether that was God or Satan.

[Mars]

I definitely do not have that much trust in the ability of human's to correctly interpret/distinguish the direction of a prompting versus their own philosophy and ideas.

 

i feel like you should have led your OP with this.  all the questions you posted feel more like a way to lead us to your conclusion rather than honestly inquire our thoughts on the issue.

 

and btw, their own philosophy and ideas could easily result in the exact same disaster scenario you outlined above.  for any number of professional outlets and settings.  you might as well conclude that we should never act at all, for fear of negative results.

 

there may be the unsaid argument, and i am mindreading here, that at least if a guy says there is no god and it's all just him, then we can at least get out of the business of unfair pressure on an adherent to follow counsel because that counsel is devoid divine sanction.  and it would remove the spiritual leader/adherent dynamic and remove the potential for abuse.

 

is that what you're getting at?

[HappyJackWagon]

i feel like you should have led your OP with this.  all the questions you posted feel more like a way to lead us to your conclusion rather than honestly inquire our thoughts on the issue.

 

and btw, their own philosophy and ideas could easily result in the exact same disaster scenario you outlined above.  for any number of professional outlets and settings.  you might as well conclude that we should never act at all, for fear of negative results.

 

there may be the unsaid argument, and i am mindreading here, that at least if a guy says there is no god and it's all just him, then we can at least get out of the business of unfair pressure on an adherent to follow counsel because that counsel is devoid divine sanction.  and it would remove the spiritual leader/adherent dynamic and remove the potential for abuse.

 

is that what you're getting at?

Of course an individual's ideas and philosophy can also lead to disaster. I'm not arguing against that at all. The difference is, of course, that the spirit is expected to be infallible. If I believe God is telling me to do something then I should be able to have confidence in that. When I decide on my own I take greater ownership of the decision and recognize that I'm responsible for the outcome.

 

I think my OP was clear in where I come from on this and I am open to other explanations but that doesn't mean I'll buy any explanation given. That would be silly. I suspect I'm misinterpreting MSBufowski which is why I asked a follow up question.

 

The problem is the teaching outlined in the OP grants infallibility to every person following (what they think is) the spirit, because if they're righteous their thoughts will be inspired by God. This is overly simplistic and unjustifiable in my mind because there are far too many examples of people claiming to follow the spirit and doing horrible things or things that end up having horrible consequences. That's all.

[Mars]

If I believe God is telling me to do something then I should be able to have confidence in that.

 

~snip~

 

I definitely do not have that much trust in the ability of human's to correctly interpret/distinguish the direction of a prompting versus their own philosophy and ideas.

 

it sounds to me like you don't think that we can have any meaningful confidence in what God is telling us to do.  it's supposed to be infallible, as you say.  and any counter example proving that it's fallible means it's not ever infallible, destroying that confidence.

 

is that correct?

[jkwilliams]

Of course an individual's ideas and philosophy can also lead to disaster. I'm not arguing against that at all. The difference is, of course, that the spirit is expected to be infallible. If I believe God is telling me to do something then I should be able to have confidence in that. When I decide on my own I take greater ownership of the decision and recognize that I'm responsible for the outcome.

 

I think my OP was clear in where I come from on this and I am open to other explanations but that doesn't mean I'll buy any explanation given. That would be silly. I suspect I'm misinterpreting MSBufowski which is why I asked a follow up question.

 

The problem is the teaching outlined in the OP grants infallibility to every person following (what they think is) the spirit, because if they're righteous their thoughts will be inspired by God. This is overly simplistic and unjustifiable in my mind because there are far too many examples of people claiming to follow the spirit and doing horrible things or things that end up having horrible consequences. That's all.

 

It seems to me that, even if we make a bad choice based on following what we think are the promptings of the spirit, we can always go back and figure out some way that we were being taught a lesson through that prompting. Years ago, we needed a car because we were expecting our fourth child, and our car had only 5 seatbelts. I did my homework and, based on our limited finances then, found what I thought was the right vehicle. My wife came to me and said she had been feeling some very strong impressions from the spirit that we were not supposed to buy that car, but she knew we were supposed to buy another specific car. Against my better judgment, we bought the car she said we were supposed to buy. It was a disaster from the beginning, and we got rid of it after about 18 months of it being in the mechanic's shop constantly. She said later that it was the spirit telling her to let me pick out the cars.

[CV75]

I don't think there has to be a lot of pretending. As I said earlier, a lot of misery has been brought into the world by people who sincerely believed they were following God and/or the Spirit. I had an experience years ago that made me realize how easy it is to mistake our feelings for the spirit. I got a call one day from the stake executive secretary saying that the stake president wanted to talk to me. Immediately, I knew I was going to be called as elders quorum president. Before I had a chance to say anything, my wife said, 'You're going to be called as elders quorum president." And I was. A few years later, our bishop announced that he was moving out of the ward. My wife and I again had the same impression, only this time it was that I would be called as bishop, a thought that was terrifying to me. The high priests group leader also told me he felt impressed that I would be the bishop. They called someone else. Which was the spirit? Were both? Neither?

Huh? I said, “no one can pretend he can’t tell the difference, or that he can’t help what he believes or chooses to do, etc.: There simply is no pretending, especially in the long run. Not a little, not a lot.

 

If you can’t tell the difference, you’re confused, and God is not the author of confusion (Corinthians 14:33). Look at where Sherem and Korihor’s confusion came from, and how it developed. And while Nephi, Abraham and Jonah struggled with the message, they knew Who was delivering it.

 

I think the real question is, “How does one prevent spiritual confusion?” The answer to that is a lifestyle, not a formula. JS-H 1:13 and Psalms 71:1 suggest two people who lived the lifestyle; D&C 132:8 shows how to live the lifestyle.

 

As far as the spiritual dynamics of your non-calling go, a lot of things come into play between thought, inspiration and action. But had you possessed a different attitude about life and lived a different lifestyle with different relationships with your wife and high priest group leader, the thought of being called as bishop wouldn't have crossed your or their mind.

[SmileyMcGee]

Yesterday in Gospel Doctrine class the instructor, who is a former Mission President, related a teaching he attributed to Elder Bednar. I have no way of verifying whether or not Bednar said this so I would prefer for the focus to be on the content of what was said, and not who said it.

It was reported that in a meeting someone asked Elder Bednar how we can differentiate our own thoughts and ideas from a prompting of the spirit. Bednar reportedly said that IF the individual desires to serve God and keep his commandments and is living worthily, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an individual's thoughts and inspiration from the spirit.

I was stunned when this was said and before I could come up with a question or retort the lesson had moved on. This idea seems problematic for a multitude of reasons but I want to vet the idea here a little bit before I try talking to the teacher in case I'm missing something. The problems I see with this teaching include...

1- It creates an unreasonable expectation of infallibility in our leaders or anyone who claims to be following the spirit. Essentially any decision, idea, doctrinal opinion, relationship advice, that pops into a leaders head would be unquestionably the word of God.

2- Accepting this teaching would institutionalize all kinds of false doctrines, all in the name of follwing the leader who was follwing the spirit. This already exists to an alarming extent but this teaching would punctuate the cultural expectation.

3- There would never be any accountability for any errors, bad advice, false teachings etc. OR it would be assumed that any error was the result of an unrighteous decision maker.

4- The potential for abuse would be tremendous, both intentionally and unintentionally as people follow their leaders with the expectation of infallibility.

Now, of course there was the caviat that this is true only IF the individual is seeking to follow God by keeping his commandments and seeking the spirit. But as a general rule we trust and accept that our leaders are doing their best to live righteously and follow the spirit, so without evidence to the contrary we would accept EVERYTHING they say as inspired from God.

We can probably all think of examples when a leader (or any other person) said, did, or taught something that was wrong, even though they believed it was right. Errors happen at every level within the church, from the home to the ward to the stake to the General officers.

So my question is this... Is there any reason to accept this teaching that promptings of the spirit are the same thing as our personal thoughts, ideas or impressions?

I think that E Bednar's comment is probably the best possible answer since it's impossible to differentiate between personal feelings and feelings from the HG...I also think his comment explains the reason for many of the unfortunate teachings of certain apostles and prophets... Edited August 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

Infallibility doesn't mean without opposition.

It doesn't mean everybody will agree or like what God empowers or inspires a pwrson to do.

And it doesn't mean adversaries of God will be annihilated either.

You should think some more about what infallibility means in regards to God's counsel.

[mfbukowski]

and agnostics agree with you

I am a confused LDS that is still trying to know the difference between the spirit and emotions. What you say doesn't help.

Are you saying that if we make the right choices, it means that it was the spirit?

and if we make the wrong choices, it was just our own though?

I agree miracles happen, there are millions of faithful Christians and billions of events that happen everyday on the planet, so an extraodinary miracle is bound to happen somewhere, but Elder Todd Christofferson said that a spiritual testimony " will not even come from witnessing miracles."

I really hope someday I can know the difference between my own thoughs and the spirit.

Read the op.No Difference.

[hope_for_things]

Honestly I’m not sure there is a reliable way to determine whether inspirational thoughts come from our own brain or from God in the moment.  In hindsight I think we can reflect and see what the fruits of that decision were, and that might get us closer to an understanding. 

 

There has been a lot of scientific work on the brain and how it works that can provide insight around these issues.  I just wish that we could have discussions about these things in church and learn from the research that has been done and try to come to a better understanding about how God might or might not communicate to us as humans.  

[HappyJackWagon]

Honestly I’m not sure there is a reliable way to determine whether inspirational thoughts come from our own brain or from God in the moment.  In hindsight I think we can reflect and see what the fruits of that decision were, and that might get us closer to an understanding. 

 

There has been a lot of scientific work on the brain and how it works that can provide insight around these issues.  I just wish that we could have discussions about these things in church and learn from the research that has been done and try to come to a better understanding about how God might or might not communicate to us as humans.  

I think this would have been a much more reasonable response for Bednar to give. The question provided him a great opportunity to expound on recognizing the difference between the spirit and our own natural thoughts but he chose to go with a simple, bumper sticker response that doesn't seem to hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Read the op.No Difference.

 

I hope you are wrong, and I hope there is a way to know the difference. 

 

Honestly I’m not sure there is a reliable way to determine whether inspirational thoughts come from our own brain or from God in the moment.  In hindsight I think we can reflect and see what the fruits of that decision were, and that might get us closer to an understanding. .  

 

So good fruits come from God? 

and bad fruits come from our brain?

is that the only way to know?  

 

 

There has been a lot of scientific work on the brain and how it works that can provide insight around these issues.  I just wish that we could have discussions about these things in church and learn from the research that has been done and try to come to a better understanding about how God might or might not communicate to us as humans.  

 

I think it is the biggest question ever 

and I said 

 

I am a confused LDS that is still trying to know the difference between the spirit and emotions. 

 

I agree miracles happen, there are millions of faithful Christians and billions of events that happen everyday on the planet, so an extraodinary miracle is bound to happen somewhere, but Elder Todd Christofferson said that a spiritual testimony " will not even come from witnessing miracles."

 

I really hope someday I can know the difference between my own thoughs and the spirit.

 

 

Again you are assuming that the Spirit gives us objective truth independent of circumstances.

 

So are you saying that agnostics are right? They don't believe in objective truth. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[hope_for_things]

So good fruits come from God? 

and bad fruits come from our brain?

is that the only way to know?  

I’m not sure we can ever know with certainty in this life.  I’d like to think that good fruits come from God, but I can’t rule out random chance as a factor.  Personally, I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in spiritual communication anymore, but that being said, I still make decisions without a perfect understanding of things, and my emotional thinking (pathos) is an important part of my mindset and the decision making process.  I don’t think we can ever separate the logical and emotional elements in our thinking. 

 

The danger in church discussions about following spiritual communications is with an emphasis on doing something that we personally find morally objectionable, and people will still do it because they believe the spirit is telling them to.  Or out of obedience to a leader.  This is where Mormonism fails on a regular basis.  We should always do what we believe is ethical and moral, regardless what we believe the spirit is telling us, or what an authority is telling us.  We should do what we think is personally right after careful consideration.  That’s my opinion.  

[hope_for_things]

I think this would have been a much more reasonable response for Bednar to give. The question provided him a great opportunity to expound on recognizing the difference between the spirit and our own natural thoughts but he chose to go with a simple, bumper sticker response that doesn't seem to hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

 

I agree.  Elder Bednar is a smart guy.  He should know enough to be able to have an intelligent discussion of this subject.  

[mfbukowski]

I hope you are wrong, and I hope there is a way to know the difference.

So good fruits come from God?

and bad fruits come from our brain?

is that the only way to know?

I think it is the biggest question ever

and I said

So are you saying that agnostics are right? They don't believe in objective truth.

This is where are your misunderstanding of Science takes you. I have been trying to tell you forever that science does not explore objective truth. The reality is all we have is the world as we experience it. Once you learn that you will understand. The agnostics are also wrong because they are trying to find objective truth as well.

[mfbukowski]

News flash: God is not objectively provable!

[TheSkepticChristian]

This is where are your misunderstanding of Science takes you. I have been trying to tell you forever that science does not explore objective truth. 

 

It doesn't, science only assumes the world is real, and science is agnostic. Science is about the best available explanation, not a Mathematical proof. 

 

 

he reality is all we have is the world as we experience it. Once you learn that you will understand

 

but I want to know the difference between my own thoughts and spiritual impressions. 

 

 

The agnostics are also wrong because they are trying to find objective truth as well.

 

Not all agnostics try to find objective truth, some people are agnostic about everything. 

 

 

News flash: God is not objectively provable!

 

God is provable, Stephen Hawking will look for the God of Joseph Smith next year 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/20/stephen-hawking-announces-100-million-hunt-for-alien-life/

 

and other scientists are using other methods to look for God 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

It doesn't, science only assumes the world is real, and science is agnostic. Science is about the best available explanation, not a Mathematical proof.

but I want to know the difference between my own thoughts and spiritual impressions.

Not all agnostics try to find objective truth, some people are agnostic about everything.

God is provable, Stephen Hawking will look for the God of Joseph Smith next year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/20/stephen-hawking-announces-100-million-hunt-for-alien-life/

and other scientists are using other methods to look for God

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/

Good. Go ask Hawking your question then and see what wisdom he gives you

[mfbukowski]

You have all the answers why are you here?

[TheSkepticChristian]

You have all the answers why are you here?

I don't, I am looking for answers

 

Read post 39 

 

I agree miracles happen, there are millions of faithful Christians and billions of events that happen everyday on the planet, so an extraodinary miracle is bound to happen somewhere, but Elder Todd Christofferson said that a spiritual testimony " will not even come from witnessing miracles."

 

I really hope someday I can know the difference between my own thoughts and the spirit.

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

I think this would have been a much more reasonable response for Bednar to give. The question provided him a great opportunity to expound on recognizing the difference between the spirit and our own natural thoughts but he chose to go with a simple, bumper sticker response that doesn't seem to hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

He was right on. You just don't think so, at the moment.

Try this on for size now.

The thoughts of a (true) Christian are the same as the thoughts which Christ has.

Or, the thoughts of a person who is inspired by the Spirit are the same as the thoughts which the Spirit has inspired him to have.

Or for what would fit better on a bumper sticker:

Persons inspired by the Spirit

have thoughts from the Spirit.

It's a very simple and good thought. Would you like to guess who gave it to me?

[Ahab]

News flash: God is not objectively provable!

If your objective is to prove that he lives he most certainly is.

[SmileyMcGee]

You have all the answers why are you here?

That's the key! Even in hindsight, a person cannot differentiate between a "prompting" and a personal feeling. Too many unknowable things are assumed.