Teancum Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 While, I realize this was said in jest, I don't get the impression either jkwilliams or Teancum is attempting to evangelize anyone out of the Church.I would never do that. There are only a handful of people outside this board that I discuss these things with. But if someone wants to challenge my personal integrity or evangelize me to thier position I will respectfully share with them why I am where I am and see if they have been willing to ask similar questions and challenge with openess their own cherished beliefs.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 I would never do that. There are only a handful of people outside this board that I discuss these things with. But if someone wants to challenge my personal integrity or evangelize me to thier position I will respectfully share with them why I am where I am and see if they have been willing to ask similar questions and challenge with openess their own cherished beliefs.Same here. Anyone who would leave the church because of me is an idiot.
Ahab Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 You are a sample size of 1. Really, you need to stop assuming you are representative of the entire population of truth-seekers.Lol. Dude I am not assuming that at all.When you are hearing from me you are hearing from me, and when you say anything you are the one saying it.Get real.
ttribe Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 I would never do that. There are only a handful of people outside this board that I discuss these things with. But if someone wants to challenge my personal integrity or evangelize me to thier position I will respectfully share with them why I am where I am and see if they have been willing to ask similar questions and challenge with openess their own cherished beliefs. Same here. Anyone who would leave the church because of me is an idiot. It's true! You are wolves in sheep's clothing!
Ahab Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 The only way the experience of people like us makes sense to him is to assume that our spiritual decisions were made on a whim. Not true, but it's easier than empathizing and trying to understand.Wrong assessment of me and what I think of you or your reasons for why you believe whatever it is you believe.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Wrong assessment of me and what I think of you or your reasons for why you believe whatever it is you believe.Then you shouldn't use terms like flip-flop so casually. 1
Teancum Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 It's true! You are wolves in sheep's clothing!Well based on Russell's assessment of me I am a filthy apostate. Though I did just accept a call to teach my HP quorum once a month. I told my ward leaders I would do it but I could not bear a traditional LDS testimony. I also said I would do nothing to cause doubt to any quorum member.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Well based on Russell's assessment of me I am a filthy apostate. Though I did just accept a call to teach my HP quorum once a month. I told my ward leaders I would do it but I could not bear a traditional LDS testimony. I also said I would do nothing to cause doubt to any quorum member.Hey, at least you're not fundamentally dishonest. I also said I would accept a home teaching assignment, but I don't have a companion yet.
ttribe Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Lol. Dude I am not assuming that at all.When you are hearing from me you are hearing from me, and when you say anything you are the one saying it.Get real. Yeah, ummm, okay.
Five Solas Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 If I make a cake, set out plates and forks, invite my son to the table, and invite him to eat it, does that mean he has no agency on whether or not he eats the cake?Of course not. My providing everything and offering it to him does not negate his free agency. His very ability to eat the cake depends completely on me, but it's still his choice.I have a two year old and a 13 month old and believe me, if they don't want to eat something I am powerless to force them to!It's the same with us and our belief.Six rep points you got for that analogy, bluebell, congrats. With a 6, 5, and 2 year-old myself, I can relate to a sense of powerlessness at the dinner table on not infrequent occasion. And the Kingdom of God is analogous to a feast, per Matthew 22:2-14 (parable of the wedding banquet) and Luke 15:11-32 (The Prodigal Son--although as Tim Keller points out, it might have been better described, The Prodigal God). Notable in both those examples, people don't want to come & eat, instead they react with anger and even violence. That's happened once or twice at our table too. But here's where your analogy breaks down: Yes, it's up to you to provide the cake and position your son at the table. But his ability to ingest cake thereafter most certainly does *not* depend on you. Of his own volition and ability - he can stretch forth his hand into the cake you set in front of him and commence to gorge himself. He doesn't need you any longer (at least not until it's time to clean up). I actually liked how you said it in your post prior to one above - you wrote that we depend upon God for "even our ability to believe." I agreed with your previous statement. Your subsequent analogy suggests you really didn't mean it. --Erik PS. And now, I've a table to get ready myself...;0)
Ahab Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Then you shouldn't use terms like flip-flop so casually.It's a common term refrrring to simply changing one's mind or position on an issue, without any regard for how long a time before changing positions. I
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 It's a common term refrrring to simply changing one's mind or position on an issue, without any regard for how long a time before changing positions. I If you say so ...
janderich Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Actually I love The Lord of the Rings and have had some very moving and deep feelings as I have read the books many times over. Is that the Holy Ghost? I felt as moved by these books in a way similar to feelings I have had about the Book of Mormon. Why is it so hard to admit that reliance on spiritual experiences, usually described in the form of emotions and thoughts, can be irreconcilable with other people's same experiences, is easily manipulated by circumstance and conditions, and is subject to re-interpretation when considered in the light of new information?I love a good Sci-Fi or Fantasy. They can even be moving. For example, Interstellar was an emotional movie. But as wonderful as these books and movies are, the feelings we receive are not the Holy Ghost. I do not know exactly why, but there is so much confusion around what constitutes inspiration from the Holy Ghost. So, when I cry is that the Holy Ghost? When I'm excited am I filled with the spirit? What is the effect of the Holy Ghost? Joseph Smith said, "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence" (TPJS p. 149). Note it well, "no other effect than pure intelligence". Understanding, new ideas, undefiled truth, these are the effects of the Holy Ghost. Of course we may be brought to tears because of the pure knowledge we receive, but those emotions are the result, or fruit, of the understanding we have received not it's first effect. Spiritual experiences are misunderstood by many, but do not imply or say they are easily manipulated by circumstances, for they are not. I would invite anyone to recognize when pure intelligence is given to them directly from the Holy Ghost. Pay attention to the first effect not the after effect. Then you will not be easily deceived or misunderstand the workings of the Spirit.
stemelbow Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 I love a good Sci-Fi or Fantasy. They can even be moving. For example, Interstellar was an emotional movie. But as wonderful as these books and movies are, the feelings we receive are not the Holy Ghost. I do not know exactly why, but there is so much confusion around what constitutes inspiration from the Holy Ghost. So, when I cry is that the Holy Ghost? When I'm excited am I filled with the spirit? What is the effect of the Holy Ghost? Joseph Smith said, "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence" (TPJS p. 149). Note it well, "no other effect than pure intelligence". Understanding, new ideas, undefiled truth, these are the effects of the Holy Ghost. Of course we may be brought to tears because of the pure knowledge we receive, but those emotions are the result, or fruit, of the understanding we have received not it's first effect. Spiritual experiences are misunderstood by many, but do not imply or say they are easily manipulated by circumstances, for they are not. I would invite anyone to recognize when pure intelligence is given to them directly from the Holy Ghost. Pay attention to the first effect not the after effect. Then you will not be easily deceived or misunderstand the workings of the Spirit. In the end, though, spiritual experiences, personal experiences with the Holy Ghost do not result in fool proof methods for determining truth. Just as ttribe suggested spiritual experiences "can be irreconcilable with other people's same experiences, is easily manipulated by circumstance and conditions, and is subject to re-interpretation when considered in the light of new information". Thus, all of us, even he who has the most spiritual experience under his belt, are walking this earth not able to see all and thus a little confused, lost, and/or wrong. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 In the end, though, spiritual experiences, personal experiences with the Holy Ghost do not result in fool proof methods for determining truth. Just as ttribe suggested spiritual experiences "can be irreconcilable with other people's same experiences, is easily manipulated by circumstance and conditions, and is subject to re-interpretation when considered in the light of new information". Thus, all of us, even he who has the most spiritual experience under his belt, are walking this earth not able to see all and thus a little confused, lost, and/or wrong. The thing about spiritual experiences is that they are not transferable, so how one experiences and interprets the spirit will always be intensely subjective. And anything that is subject to personal interpretation can easily be wrong. History is full of people who did terrible things based on their belief they were receiving "pure intelligence" from the spirit. If you ask the Laffertys, there is no difference between what they did and what Nephi did with Laban.
stemelbow Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 The thing about spiritual experiences is that they are not transferable, so how one experiences and interprets the spirit will always be intensely subjective. And anything that is subject to personal interpretation can easily be wrong. History is full of people who did terrible things based on their belief they were receiving "pure intelligence" from the spirit. If you ask the Laffertys, there is no difference between what they did and what Nephi did with Laban. I wouldn't doubt if we're all somewhat under the illusion that we did something good and useful when if we really understood the end from the beginning, we'd see that what we did was actually opposing that which is good. This kind of stuff really is difficult and is at the heart of our disagreements, it seems.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 I wouldn't doubt if we're all somewhat under the illusion that we did something good and useful when if we really understood the end from the beginning, we'd see that what we did was actually opposing that which is good. This kind of stuff really is difficult and is at the heart of our disagreements, it seems. Yep. It's easy for us to believe that someone who disagrees with us is prideful, sinful, lazy, stupid, or whatever. I find it much more useful to believe that most people are honestly seeking truth and enlightenment, even though we may disagree over how to achieve it. 3
stemelbow Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Yep. It's easy for us to believe that someone who disagrees with us is prideful, sinful, lazy, stupid, or whatever. I find it much more useful to believe that most people are honestly seeking truth and enlightenment, even though we may disagree over how to achieve it. You often speak my language. Thanks.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 You often speak my language. Thanks. What do I know? I'm fundamentally dishonest. lol Years ago I met a poster on the original predecessor of this board, and it struck me at the time that we had the same general approach to life, we agreed on issues of church history and doctrine, and we genuinely liked each other. But he was out of the church, and I was a fervent believer. It was from him that I finally understood that it was possible to leave the church and even become a "critic" and still be a good, honest person. I suppose I knew that in the abstract before then, but I had always accepted the usual explanations about "apostates": they were proud, or they wanted to sin, or they intellectualized the gospel, or they couldn't handle imperfections in church leaders. None of this was true of my friend, and I began to see former church members much differently. I am not one of those people who thinks all who leave the church are intelligent or courageous, but I do recognize that a lot of people leave for legitimate and good reasons, even if others disagree with those reasons. 2
Tacenda Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Deleted Edited October 6, 2015 by Tacenda
stemelbow Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 What do I know? I'm fundamentally dishonest. lol Years ago I met a poster on the original predecessor of this board, and it struck me at the time that we had the same general approach to life, we agreed on issues of church history and doctrine, and we genuinely liked each other. But he was out of the church, and I was a fervent believer. It was from him that I finally understood that it was possible to leave the church and even become a "critic" and still be a good, honest person. I suppose I knew that in the abstract before then, but I had always accepted the usual explanations about "apostates": they were proud, or they wanted to sin, or they intellectualized the gospel, or they couldn't handle imperfections in church leaders. None of this was true of my friend, and I began to see former church members much differently. I am not one of those people who thinks all who leave the church are intelligent or courageous, but I do recognize that a lot of people leave for legitimate and good reasons, even if others disagree with those reasons. Don't get me wrong. I still realize you are the evil apostate. The devil's good at mimicking the righteous, or something like that. Just playin'. I'm with ya. I tire pretty quickly of the notion that those who leave the Church do so without good reason, as you know.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Don't get me wrong. I still realize you are the evil apostate. The devil's good at mimicking the righteous, or something like that. Just playin'. I'm with ya. I tire pretty quickly of the notion that those who leave the Church do so without good reason, as you know. Oh, I know. I've been guilty of assuming that some people are motivated by less-than-righteous motivations, but I am determined to leave that in the past. Specifically, I have apologized to Scott Lloyd for uncharitably interpreting some of his remarks, and I've apologized to a poster who I once believed had wished me harm. And I don't blame people who have judged me harshly. We all do our best to get through this life in one piece. That's all we can do.
bluebell Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I actually liked how you said it in your post prior to one above - you wrote that we depend upon God for "even our ability to believe." I agreed with your previous statement. Your subsequent analogy suggests you really didn't mean it. --Erik PS. And now, I've a table to get ready myself...;0) I think that my analogy still works. After all, my children are only alive to be able to eat and digest anything to begin with because of me (and my husband, i'll give him some credit). And my children's ability to eat depends on me as well. As has been demonstrated, that doesn't take away their free will though. Edited October 6, 2015 by bluebell 1
Maestrophil Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Actually I love The Lord of the Rings and have had some very moving and deep feelings as I have read the books many times over. Is that the Holy Ghost? I felt as moved by these books in a way similar to feelings I have had about the Book of Mormon. As others have pointed out, I am not trying to insinuate that my experiences in any way equate to yours or anyone else's. I love LOTR too and have felt warm feelings in scenes which depict friendship, love, sacrifice, faith - all good principles that I believe the spirit will testify of regardless of the source. I have had similar feelings while reading the BOM too, but I have also had VERY different feelings and impressions regarding the book and the Savior that I never have had regarding anything else - very unique and undeniable. I respect that other's mileage may vary. :-) If you were raised to believe that Hobbits and elves were real and were responsible for your salvation then you'd probably have plenty of "compelling personal experience." That comes across as a very arrogant assumption about my psyche. I was taught a lot of things that I no longer believe (as I am sure you have). To equate all believers as having had manipulated or counterfeit testimonies based on "feelings" alone is not fair, accurate, or kind. I grow as tired of that fallacy as I am sure you do of believers lobbing the "you must have wanted to sin," or "you must never have believed" tropes. Having an entire family (parents and siblings) who have left the church - I know of the pain, difficulty, and dissonance felt by those who genuinely feel they can no longer believe. We should all cut each other some slack. Edited for poor spelling from a U.S. education. :-) Edited October 6, 2015 by Maestrophil 3
ttribe Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 I love a good Sci-Fi or Fantasy. They can even be moving. For example, Interstellar was an emotional movie. But as wonderful as these books and movies are, the feelings we receive are not the Holy Ghost. I do not know exactly why, but there is so much confusion around what constitutes inspiration from the Holy Ghost. So, when I cry is that the Holy Ghost? When I'm excited am I filled with the spirit? What is the effect of the Holy Ghost? Joseph Smith said, "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence" (TPJS p. 149). Note it well, "no other effect than pure intelligence". Understanding, new ideas, undefiled truth, these are the effects of the Holy Ghost. Of course we may be brought to tears because of the pure knowledge we receive, but those emotions are the result, or fruit, of the understanding we have received not it's first effect. Spiritual experiences are misunderstood by many, but do not imply or say they are easily manipulated by circumstances, for they are not. I would invite anyone to recognize when pure intelligence is given to them directly from the Holy Ghost. Pay attention to the first effect not the after effect. Then you will not be easily deceived or misunderstand the workings of the Spirit. I would submit that Joseph Smith's description, as cited by you, is one of several ways in which communication by the Spirit is taught by the Church. Galations 5:12, for example was the principal scripture used by us as missionaries. There are, of course, numerous lessons in correlated manuals and talks by various Prophets and Apostles which expand on this topic. That being said, I do not concede that these feelings cannot be manipulated; a significant portion of my academic and professional training and experience tells me otherwise.
Recommended Posts