Spiritual Intelligence and Secular Religion- How Close Are We?

[mfbukowski]

I have been familiar with Process Theology for a long time and indeed much of what I believe is true ABOUT how religion functions in our lives comes from process theology.

That is NOT to say that what I BELIEVE religiously is part of process theology, just that I think they capture the PURPOSE of religion pretty well.  There are LDS process theologians- Blake Ostler identifies himself as one, as does James McLachan.

I find this blog to be pretty interesting.  But the question I am raising is- what can we learn about Mormonism from these ideas about "spiritual intelligence"?

How do these views help us to better understand how others see the purpose of religious discourse?

How could these views help us with missionary work in a secular world? 

Quote

 

Summary -- A Process Appreciation

Spiritual intelligence is a combination of emotional intelligence and intellectual understanding.  The two cannot be separated.

The twelve principles of spiritual intelligence identified by Dana Zohar offer a good sense of the core features and capacities of spiritual intelligence. 

Spiritual intelligence is largely intuitive but nevertheless cognitive in that it knows things about the other people, the natural world, and the larger cosmic context of life

Spiritual intelligence is evoked by influences from beyond the self -- other people, plants and animals, trees and stars -- and emerges as a creative response to those influences. The soul of the universe -- God -- is among those influences.

Spiritual intelligence can be embodied by individuals and groups of individuals. 

Many aspects of spiritual intelligence -- including  the emotional aspects -- can be measured.   See the work of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence.

Spiritual intelligence is available to people of all ages.  It is especially important that it be taught to young children.

Spiritual intelligence is available to people who are religious, people who are not religious, and the vast majority of people who are somewhere in between.

Spiritual intelligence can include, but does not require, belief in God, understood as a personal power or force.

For those who believe in God, spirituality can be understood as a way of participating in God's life and responding to God's call.

Spiritual intelligence can be a part of government, industry, and education.

One purpose of religion in the 21st century is to help people grow in spiritual intelligence.

 

 

 

 

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/spiritual-intelligence-ten-suggestions.html

More on Process Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

Edited May 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

Interesting MFB - I'm glad you brought it up. I too have ponderings on "spiritual intelligence" as I have experienced "knowing things" about people - it is more than intuition. I also feel I am very attuned to who is lying. But your link says: "We need to understand spiritual intelligence in a public and scientifically-informed way." I am not sure I understand what they mean by "scientific account." Do they wish to somehow prove that people experience spiritual intelligence? It may be possible to show these kinds of things happen on a statistically significant scale, but I kind of doubt that other scientific measurements are going to be very fruitful. Nevertheless I found your link quite interesting. I have my doubts about some ideas tho - how do you teach spiritual intelligence to your children? I kind of feel it is something developed by sensitive spirits, and can't really be taught. Some principles might be taught, and a knowledge of the existence of spiritual intelligence might be taught, but some aspects just are...or are not. I think in this vein Buddhist meditation practices are ahead of Christians, so might be looked to as an example of how to teach "spiritual intellingence." Just a few rambling thoughts on your topic....
 

 

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Interesting MFB - I'm glad you brought it up. I too have ponderings on "spiritual intelligence" as I have experienced "knowing things" about people - it is more than intuition. I also feel I am very attuned to who is lying. But your link says: "We need to understand spiritual intelligence in a public and scientifically-informed way." I am not sure I understand what they mean by "scientific account." Do they wish to somehow prove that people experience spiritual intelligence? It may be possible to show these kinds of things happen on a statistically significant scale, but I kind of doubt that other scientific measurements are going to be very fruitful. Nevertheless I found your link quite interesting. I have my doubts about some ideas tho - how do you teach spiritual intelligence to your children? I kind of feel it is something developed by sensitive spirits, and can't really be taught. Some principles might be taught, and a knowledge of the existence of spiritual intelligence might be taught, but some aspects just are...or are not. I think in this vein Buddhist meditation practices are ahead of Christians, so might be looked to as an example of how to teach "spiritual intellingence." Just a few rambling thoughts on your topic....
 

 

Thanks for the reply

The way I see it they are not talking about what we call "revelation" as much as a kind of "spiritual IQ" which helps us define what is "religious" to human beings to enable us to see others - even atheists and agnostics- as "religious" because of the benefits that their beliefs about religion provide them.  So it is more intelligence about religion rather than spiritual information received through revelation.

I think that is where the science comes in.  Notice the very first line

 

"Spiritual intelligence is a combination of emotional intelligence and intellectual understanding.  The two cannot be separated."

What it is saying I think is that we are used to making a differentiation between "faith" and "reason" and relying on one or the other or even defining them differently.  What this is saying is that they cannot be separated.  We LDS often differentiate between "revelation" and "emotion" by asking the question "Was it God or was it my emotions?"

I think what this is saying is that we cannot separate the two, and everyone needs to acknowledge that.

What prompted this is the idea that if one can show that revelation is a scientifically measurable  psychological state, then it cannot be from God.  That idea has come up on a few threads on this board of late. If what we call revelation can actually be induced through psychological manipulation then it cannot be from God.

This is saying that that idea is nonsense- that emotions AND intellect work together, with no separateion, in what we call "spiritual" matters

There IS no differentiation between emotion and revelation and intellectual activity- they are all part of the same way of seeing the world.

It says that we can find spiritual advancement - "intelligence"-  and fulfillment- in gazing at a leaf, in service for people, or in any other human activity, and that applies even to those who do not believe in God.

It advocates understanding this idea of spirituality in a more scientific way and teaching this to children.

I think that if we understood these ideas- agree with them or not- we could get much closer to our more secular brothers and sisters, be able to communicate with them better, and even perhaps show them our ideas in a more constructive way.

And hopefully we would see fewer threads about evolution and how scientific data and psychology proves that there is no God.

Those are ridiculous assertions and we find them every day here on this forum BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE IDEAS.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Also, the video on the site from the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence speaks about how to learn to be your "best self"

It alludes to using psychological techniques to helping us learn to become better human beings.

We as LDS seek to become like a Perfect Human Being- who we know as Heavenly Father.

Could these scientific ideas actually help us to become like Him??

What does looking at spirituality in this light mean for our faith?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been familiar with Process Theology for a long time and indeed much of what I believe is true ABOUT how religion functions in our lives comes from process theology.

That is NOT to say that what I BELIEVE religiously is part of process theology, just that I think they capture the PURPOSE of religion pretty well.  There are LDS process theologians- Blake Ostler identifies himself as one, as does James McLachan.

I find this blog to be pretty interesting.  But the question I am raising is- what can we learn about Mormonism from these ideas about "spiritual intelligence"?

How do these views help us to better understand how others see the purpose of religious discourse?

How could these views help us with missionary work in a secular world? 

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/spiritual-intelligence-ten-suggestions.html

More on Process Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

I think the Church weighs research in this and other areas to improve how messages are presented and how the ministry and administration of the kingdom are carried out. It is always good to see where oneself and others are coming from, and this can offer some understanding, insight and empathy. Enhancing our missionary work is one application.

The same goes for what we can learn about Mormonism, if we can use this knowledge to discern rather than judge the needs of others, for the purpose of meeting their needs (charity in action).

I think there is more than one purpose for religious discourse, but inasmuch as it is the expression of, and finding the best in, others, it ties in with what can be learned about Mormonism.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been familiar with Process Theology for a long time and indeed much of what I believe is true ABOUT how religion functions in our lives comes from process theology.

That is NOT to say that what I BELIEVE religiously is part of process theology, just that I think they capture the PURPOSE of religion pretty well.  There are LDS process theologians- Blake Ostler identifies himself as one, as does James McLachan.

I find this blog to be pretty interesting.  But the question I am raising is- what can we learn about Mormonism from these ideas about "spiritual intelligence"?

How do these views help us to better understand how others see the purpose of religious discourse?

How could these views help us with missionary work in a secular world? 

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/spiritual-intelligence-ten-suggestions.html

More on Process Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

My faith journey has caused me to reinterpret my earlier spiritual experiences, and I view them through a different lens.  I know this is common for others as well, and it has raised many questions in my mind about how my mind works and where and how I experience spirituality.  

I see some cons to the traditional Mormon way of interpreting spiritual experiences when those spiritual experiences are used for confirmation bias as one example.  Or when spiritual experiences are used as a trump card and superior to reasoned based thinking.  

But, I don't want to discount the reality that there are positive elements to spiritual experience, and I still appreciate my spiritual experiences in life, the very experiences that I have reinterpreted, and will likely continue to reinterpret throughout my life.  

To answer your question about missionary work, I do think that spirituality will be an important benefit offered by religion to the secular world, but I think the current Mormon missionary message doesn't translate for most secular thinkers.  If spirituality is presented as interconnected to emotion and as an important part of the human thought processes, then I think it can succeed in adding value to a secular thinking individual's view of their human nature.  

Unfortunately the message that Mormon culture often sends about the spirit, is that spiritual knowledge trumps and is superior to secular knowledge.  A recent conversation I had with a family member was that I've been thinking about things too much, and that this thinking is antithetical to true knowledge which can only come from revelation through the spirit.  I've heard this many times before, so I wasn't shocked, but the assumption that there is some danger in thinking and learning, and that we should just trust our feelings and ignore evidence is off putting to me, and I don't think that kind of message will be successful at gaining converts.  

 

[jkwilliams]

Quote

Summary -- A Process Appreciation

Spiritual intelligence is a combination of emotional intelligence and intellectual understanding.  The two cannot be separated.

The twelve principles of spiritual intelligence identified by Dana Zohar offer a good sense of the core features and capacities of spiritual intelligence. 

Spiritual intelligence is largely intuitive but nevertheless cognitive in that it knows things about the other people, the natural world, and the larger cosmic context of life

Spiritual intelligence is evoked by influences from beyond the self -- other people, plants and animals, trees and stars -- and emerges as a creative response to those influences. The soul of the universe -- God -- is among those influences.

Spiritual intelligence can be embodied by individuals and groups of individuals. 

Many aspects of spiritual intelligence -- including  the emotional aspects -- can be measured.   See the work of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence.

Spiritual intelligence is available to people of all ages.  It is especially important that it be taught to young children.

Spiritual intelligence is available to people who are religious, people who are not religious, and the vast majority of people who are somewhere in between.

Spiritual intelligence can include, but does not require, belief in God, understood as a personal power or force.

For those who believe in God, spirituality can be understood as a way of participating in God's life and responding to God's call.

Spiritual intelligence can be a part of government, industry, and education.

One purpose of religion in the 21st century is to help people grow in spiritual intelligence.

I actually quite like this, especially the bit about spiritual intelligence being a creative response to internal and external influences. Sounds quite similar to things I've said many times. 

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My faith journey has caused me to reinterpret my earlier spiritual experiences, and I view them through a different lens.  I know this is common for others as well, and it has raised many questions in my mind about how my mind works and where and how I experience spirituality.  

I see some cons to the traditional Mormon way of interpreting spiritual experiences when those spiritual experiences are used for confirmation bias as one example.  Or when spiritual experiences are used as a trump card and superior to reasoned based thinking.  

But, I don't want to discount the reality that there are positive elements to spiritual experience, and I still appreciate my spiritual experiences in life, the very experiences that I have reinterpreted, and will likely continue to reinterpret throughout my life.  

To answer your question about missionary work, I do think that spirituality will be an important benefit offered by religion to the secular world, but I think the current Mormon missionary message doesn't translate for most secular thinkers.  If spirituality is presented as interconnected to emotion and as an important part of the human thought processes, then I think it can succeed in adding value to a secular thinking individual's view of their human nature.  

Unfortunately the message that Mormon culture often sends about the spirit, is that spiritual knowledge trumps and is superior to secular knowledge.  A recent conversation I had with a family member was that I've been thinking about things too much, and that this thinking is antithetical to true knowledge which can only come from revelation through the spirit.  I've heard this many times before, so I wasn't shocked, but the assumption that there is some danger in thinking and learning, and that we should just trust our feelings and ignore evidence is off putting to me, and I don't think that kind of message will be successful at gaining converts.  

 

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

For me spiritual knowledge is about my internal states, helping me understand the purpose of my life, helping me cope with problems,  understanding why I am here at and where I'm going. Is never about factual knowledge nor does it have anything to do with factual knowledge. It helps me decide what to do with my life whom to marry what school to attend what course of action I should take in any situation. It has nothing to do with who did what to whom or when. It has nothing to do with how the Earth came to be, how we did or did not evolve, the causes of my experiences, or the psychology behind them.

It is about how I deal with them and make them rational in my life, and make sense of them.

I have seen the model of imagining God as a perfect human being to be immensely powerful in understanding all of these issues. I find the idea that this perfect human being wants all his children to be like him, a perfectly rational way to integrate these ideas in my life.  I find that through the mechanism of belief in the atonement,  freedom from guilt for those unethical things I've done in my life.

I am certain about revelation because I believe I have received revelations.

I examine the revelations of Joseph Smith and find that they help me immeasurably to integrate these ideas in my life. I find the whys and wherefores irrelevant I look strictly at the content of the paradigms he has put forth. 

Perhaps I view the gospel in a more secular fashion than most, but it is the cornerstone of my life and I believe this approach communicates well to secular people.

 

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

My first introduction to Process Thought was in Sunstone 1982:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/031-16-25.pdf

Still impresses me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The way I see it they are not talking about what we call "revelation" as much as a kind of "spiritual IQ" which helps us define what is "religious" to human beings to enable us to see others - even atheists and agnostics- as "religious" because of the benefits that their beliefs about religion provide them.

I would think that Spiritual IQ no more qualifies anyone for a calling than a measure of any of the other types of intelligence. I think we can observe an array of rational (and irrational) natural intelligence types, degrees and abilities in our leaders, for example. I would say that people with high SIQ are less likely to judge (condemn) their fellow beings on that count, as they would not on any other quotient, than those with low SIQ. High SIQ people are no respecters of persons...!

What sets our leaders apart despite their mortal weakness is our doctrine and our belief in the keys they administer ("whom the Lord calls, He qualifies" -- President Monson). The fuller quote, “When we are on the Lord’s errand, we are entitled to the Lord’s help. Remember that whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies,” conveys the role of grace in a spiritual ministry, after all we can do with the natural abilities we've got. Whether that grace comes from God or from another person, I think it reflects some of the attributes of a high SIQ.

We know that with the proper resources and dedication, IQ can be increased. In a sense this is how obedience to the commandments and admonitions of the Lord make us like Him. Sustaining our leaders despite one's assessment of their SIQ is good training for increasing his own!

I think the Church both uses its media resources for example, to both express and build in others a higher SIQ. And I think leadership training at all levels aims to accomplish this, regardless of where the trainee starts.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would think that Spiritual IQ no more qualifies anyone for a calling than a measure of any of the other types of intelligence. I think we can observe an array of rational (and irrational) natural intelligence types, degrees and abilities in our leaders, for example. I would say that people with high SIQ are less likely to judge (condemn) their fellow beings on that count, as they would not on any other quotient, than those with low SIQ. High SIQ people are no respecters of persons...!

What sets our leaders apart despite their mortal weakness is our doctrine and our belief in the keys they administer ("whom the Lord calls, He qualifies" -- President Monson). The fuller quote, “When we are on the Lord’s errand, we are entitled to the Lord’s help. Remember that whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies,” conveys the role of grace in a spiritual ministry, after all we can do with the natural abilities we've got. Whether that grace comes from God or from another person, I think it reflects some of the attributes of a high SIQ.

 

We know that with the proper resources and dedication, IQ can be increased. In a sense this is how obedience to the commandments and admonitions of the Lord make us like Him. Sustaining our leaders despite one's assessment of their SIQ is good training for increasing his own!

I think the Church both uses its media resources for example, to both express and build in others a higher SIQ. And I think leadership training at all levels aims to accomplish this, regardless of where the trainee starts.

 

I do not mean to imply for a second that this has anything to do callings or righteousness.

The article is speaking about an intellectual understanding of the definition of the word spiritual

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not mean to imply for a second that this has anything to do callings or righteousness.

The article is speaking about an intellectual understanding of the definition of the word spiritual

I did not take it that way at all. Just pointing out a few intellectual applications of the research in helping one view and treat the Church (and her leaders, and others), monitoring how one comes across to others or how an organization packages media messages. I think part of it is understanding one's own limitations and advantages as well as others'.

Edited May 5, 2016 by CV75

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the reply

The way I see it they are not talking about what we call "revelation" as much as a kind of "spiritual IQ" which helps us define what is "religious" to human beings to enable us to see others - even atheists and agnostics- as "religious" because of the benefits that their beliefs about religion provide them.  So it is more intelligence about religion rather than spiritual information received through revelation.

I think that is where the science comes in.  Notice the very first line

 

"Spiritual intelligence is a combination of emotional intelligence and intellectual understanding.  The two cannot be separated."

What it is saying I think is that we are used to making a differentiation between "faith" and "reason" and relying on one or the other or even defining them differently.  What this is saying is that they cannot be separated.  We LDS often differentiate between "revelation" and "emotion" by asking the question "Was it God or was it my emotions?"

I think what this is saying is that we cannot separate the two, and everyone needs to acknowledge that.

What prompted this is the idea that if one can show that revelation is a scientifically measurable  psychological state, then it cannot be from God.  That idea has come up on a few threads on this board of late. If what we call revelation can actually be induced through psychological manipulation then it cannot be from God.

This is saying that that idea is nonsense- that emotions AND intellect work together, with no separateion, in what we call "spiritual" matters

There IS no differentiation between emotion and revelation and intellectual activity- they are all part of the same way of seeing the world.

It says that we can find spiritual advancement - "intelligence"-  and fulfillment- in gazing at a leaf, in service for people, or in any other human activity, and that applies even to those who do not believe in God.

It advocates understanding this idea of spirituality in a more scientific way and teaching this to children.

I think that if we understood these ideas- agree with them or not- we could get much closer to our more secular brothers and sisters, be able to communicate with them better, and even perhaps show them our ideas in a more constructive way.

And hopefully we would see fewer threads about evolution and how scientific data and psychology proves that there is no God.

Those are ridiculous assertions and we find them every day here on this forum BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE IDEAS.

 

 

Seems to me like "spiritual intelligence" is the same thing I became accustomed to calling "common sense" when I was much younger.

Something some people seem to have or use more often than some other people, generally. 

I think it would help to try to use fewer "religious" terms and just try to use words that people don't automatically associate with a religion.  The word God especially.  And repentance.  And heaven.  To name just a few.

Our Father is just trying to help us become more "spiritually intelligent" and it would be pretty easy if we just used a lot more "common sense" (which I'm finding isn't as common as I once assumed that it was when I heard that term when I was much younger)

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps I view the gospel in a more secular fashion than most, but it is the cornerstone of my life and I believe this approach communicates well to secular people.

Yes and I see the benefits too as I think and speak in more secular/common terms too.

For example the lesson coming up this next Sunday in my priesthood meeting is about the importance of "scripture".  And right away the sirens start going off for someone who is bothered by his ideas of "religion" because he automatically associates the term "scripture" with "religion" and this guy has some frustrations from some of his prior experiences with various religions.  It's as if he has put up a road block in his mind that is going to make it harder for him to think of scripture as a good thing that he could benefit from.

So how about let's use a word other than scripture to talk about what scripture is and how it might benefit someone other than those who know what is good about scripture.

Just some ideas somebody thought of when thinking about something and decided to write down,  for example.  And then we just talk about those ideas and how they could be helpful.  Avoiding mentioning the words "God" and "repentance" too while we are at it, but still getting the same ideas. 

To secular humans the term God throws them off, so let's use a word other than God when talking with them.  At least until they understand what we mean when we use the word God.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

For me spiritual knowledge is about my internal states, helping me understand the purpose of my life, helping me cope with problems,  understanding why I am here at and where I'm going. Is never about factual knowledge nor does it have anything to do with factual knowledge. It helps me decide what to do with my life whom to marry what school to attend what course of action I should take in any situation. It has nothing to do with who did what to whom or when. It has nothing to do with how the Earth came to be, how we did or did not evolve, the causes of my experiences, or the psychology behind them.

It is about how I deal with them and make them rational in my life, and make sense of them.

This is good, but help me understand what you mean when you say it helps you to make such important life decisions about who to marry or where to attend school.  Let me give an example where this may be problematic if a person is relying to heavily upon spiritual knowledge as I understand it:

What if during your childhood you've been conditioned to believe that God requires great sacrifices of people, and that you shouldn't reach too high for things because doing so is prideful and ungodly.  What if you have a wonderful relationship with a young woman who is gorgeous, smart and accomplished, but a mission is what is expected in your culture and your upbringing is conditioned to think first of what God wants. Upon exercising sincere prayer you get the spiritual answer to serve a mission and end the relationship with this woman. All of your preconditioned ideas about sacrifice, serving God and not being too prideful are confirmed through a spiritual confirmation.  

Is this a good way of using spiritual experience to enhance your life?  I think you could apply the above example to any culture around the world and a multitude of scenarios.  Choosing a school, profession, friendships, family planning, even terrorists that feel the spirit that they should blow themselves up for God.  Isn't it important to recognize where spiritual experiences cross over into confirmation of the biases we've learned from our surrounding environments?  How can you reliably use the spirit to make such important decisions about life?  (I'm asking this, acknowledging that I personally have used this method to make virtually every major decision in my life up to this time.)

 

 

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is good, but help me understand what you mean when you say it helps you to make such important life decisions about who to marry or where to attend school.  Let me give an example where this may be problematic if a person is relying to heavily upon spiritual knowledge as I understand it:

What if during your childhood you've been conditioned to believe that God requires great sacrifices of people, and that you shouldn't reach too high for things because doing so is prideful and ungodly.  What if you have a wonderful relationship with a young woman who is gorgeous, smart and accomplished, but a mission is what is expected in your culture and your upbringing is conditioned to think first of what God wants. Upon exercising sincere prayer you get the spiritual answer to serve a mission and end the relationship with this woman. All of your preconditioned ideas about sacrifice, serving God and not being too prideful are confirmed through a spiritual confirmation.  

Is this a good way of using spiritual experience to enhance your life?  I think you could apply the above example to any culture around the world and a multitude of scenarios.  Choosing a school, profession, friendships, family planning, even terrorists that feel the spirit that they should blow themselves up for God.  Isn't it important to recognize where spiritual experiences cross over into confirmation of the biases we've learned from our surrounding environments?  How can you reliably use the spirit to make such important decisions about life?  (I'm asking this, acknowledging that I personally have used this method to make virtually every major decision in my life up to this time.)

 

 

Good exercise but let's throw another kink in there now.

I know a young man who recently started his own bakery and is doing surprisingly well only 3 years into it now.  He started out very small and it was just as an exercise in one of his high school classes, when he was 15. So now he is 18 and doing well in his business with 3 employees working for him.  And he has also met a wonderful young woman and recently married her in the temple.  Deciding not to go on a mission even though he could see that it would have been a good experience for him.

Good move or not, do you think?  For him,  I mean. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

I did not take it that way at all. Just pointing out a few intellectual applications of the research in helping one view and treat the Church (and her leaders, and others), monitoring how one comes across to others or how an organization packages media messages. I think part of it is understanding one's own limitations and advantages as well as others'.

Ah ok, sorry for the misunderstandings.  I think our way of speaking about the church has been intentionally simplified for all levels of members from children on up.  I guess I am suggesting that our media messages could occasionally be written in such a way as to communicate better with secular people, discussing the real community and other benefits of membership.

I have been in sales a long time and I know that when you are selling real estate for example, you don't sell the building per se but the BENEFITS of owning that investment.  It's not about bricks and mortar, but retiring earlier and providing for your family.  You have to show people how their lives will be better by taking the action you are suggesting.

So in the church for example, we might want to stress more what it feels like to be a forever family, the peace and joy one finds in the gospel, keeping your kids closer to God and having a solid family life.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

My first introduction to Process Thought was in Sunstone 1982:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/031-16-25.pdf

Still impresses me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

AHA!  I remember reading this when it came out but then I lost track of the article etc.  Thanks for bringing it up.

I want to take another good look at it. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Seems to me like "spiritual intelligence" is the same thing I became accustomed to calling "common sense" when I was much younger.

Something some people seem to have or use more often than some other people, generally. 

I think it would help to try to use fewer "religious" terms and just try to use words that people don't automatically associate with a religion.  The word God especially.  And repentance.  And heaven.  To name just a few.

Our Father is just trying to help us become more "spiritually intelligent" and it would be pretty easy if we just used a lot more "common sense" (which I'm finding isn't as common as I once assumed that it was when I heard that term when I was much younger)

I think there is a lot of truth to this, and yes most of the problem is vocabulary and how we speak about these issues.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is good, but help me understand what you mean when you say it helps you to make such important life decisions about who to marry or where to attend school.  Let me give an example where this may be problematic if a person is relying to heavily upon spiritual knowledge as I understand it:

What if during your childhood you've been conditioned to believe that God requires great sacrifices of people, and that you shouldn't reach too high for things because doing so is prideful and ungodly.  What if you have a wonderful relationship with a young woman who is gorgeous, smart and accomplished, but a mission is what is expected in your culture and your upbringing is conditioned to think first of what God wants. Upon exercising sincere prayer you get the spiritual answer to serve a mission and end the relationship with this woman. All of your preconditioned ideas about sacrifice, serving God and not being too prideful are confirmed through a spiritual confirmation.  

Is this a good way of using spiritual experience to enhance your life?  I think you could apply the above example to any culture around the world and a multitude of scenarios.  Choosing a school, profession, friendships, family planning, even terrorists that feel the spirit that they should blow themselves up for God.  Isn't it important to recognize where spiritual experiences cross over into confirmation of the biases we've learned from our surrounding environments?  How can you reliably use the spirit to make such important decisions about life?  (I'm asking this, acknowledging that I personally have used this method to make virtually every major decision in my life up to this time.)

 

 

Sorry- I am not getting this at all.

So you should NOT do what your gut tells you to do because that's the way you were raised?  Whatever you think is best- do the opposite??  I do not understand at all.

And not getting married for this person and going on a mission is wrong ...  and you know so ....why?

If you do not sit down and examine all the factors in your mind and consult your deepest feelings and make a decision, how DO you make such decisions?

Sorry- I honestly do not understand the post.  Do you ignore all values you have been raised with and do what- ask someone else to make the decision for you because they know better?

Should your hypothetical person have consulted his science teacher about getting married vs a mission instead of perhaps a bishop?

What if you were conditioned in your childhood to consult a computer for logical answers to your life problems and firmly follow them disregarding emotions in all cases?

Why get married at all?

The issue here is what makes you happy regardless of values.  There are no "better" decisions about these matters objectively, yet it seems you want your person to follow YOUR values instead of the ones they were raised with?  Why should they do that?

[mfbukowski]

Confirmation bias in favor of what?

What is the objective standard which we should NOT be biased in favor of, and who makes that decision?  Where is the objective standard of what is right for an individual??

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah ok, sorry for the misunderstandings.  I think our way of speaking about the church has been intentionally simplified for all levels of members from children on up.  I guess I am suggesting that our media messages could occasionally be written in such a way as to communicate better with secular people, discussing the real community and other benefits of membership.

I have been in sales a long time and I know that when you are selling real estate for example, you don't sell the building per se but the BENEFITS of owning that investment.  It's not about bricks and mortar, but retiring earlier and providing for your family.  You have to show people how their lives will be better by taking the action you are suggesting.

So in the church for example, we might want to stress more what it feels like to be a forever family, the peace and joy one finds in the gospel, keeping your kids closer to God and having a solid family life.

I’m sure the Church will continue to use scientific research to improve its messaging, from what I’ve interpreted in how the messaging has changed over the years. I think the “…and I’m a Mormon” campaign started to touch on appealing to a secular interest.

I think part of the challenge in conveying through the mass media “what it feels like to be a forever family, the peace and joy one finds in the gospel, keeping your kids closer to God and having a solid family life,” etc. is that it can come across to some as schmaltzy and emotionally manipulative to many.

I do like the approach of conveying “what it feels like” rather than making an appeal to scientific research (which can be argued back and forth forever) to advertise Gospel benefits. This is where SQI research is very useful. If all the points and triggers are met, even a low-SQI producer can create and distribute messages that resonate with either low- or high-SQI audiences as needed. And perhaps more importantly, it offers additional tools to help the audience trust the messenger or at least appreciate that what may come across as schmaltzy at first just might actually be quite authentic.

[Yirgacheffe]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah ok, sorry for the misunderstandings.  I think our way of speaking about the church has been intentionally simplified for all levels of members from children on up.  I guess I am suggesting that our media messages could occasionally be written in such a way as to communicate better with secular people, discussing the real community and other benefits of membership.

I have been in sales a long time and I know that when you are selling real estate for example, you don't sell the building per se but the BENEFITS of owning that investment.  It's not about bricks and mortar, but retiring earlier and providing for your family.  You have to show people how their lives will be better by taking the action you are suggesting.

So in the church for example, we might want to stress more what it feels like to be a forever family, the peace and joy one finds in the gospel, keeping your kids closer to God and having a solid family life.

It seems that many secular people who view spirituality as part of their lives, were once upon a time members of a religious group but have rejected it as a needed or even valid vehicle for spirituality.  Religion is often viewed as a hindrance to exploring and developing spirituality as it limits belief, demands time and resources and in some cases punishes the fringe membership.  IMO secular people who feel they have been burned by religion but still value their spiritual experiences are not going just accept your new wording, they are going to view it as more of the same, "join my church, it's the best/correct/real/true thing and certainly not like that poor excuse of a church you used to belong to, you will be much happier with us". 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

Good exercise but let's throw another kink in there now.

I know a young man who recently started his own bakery and is doing surprisingly well only 3 years into it now.  He started out very small and it was just as an exercise in one of his high school classes, when he was 15. So now he is 18 and doing well in his business with 3 employees working for him.  And he has also met a wonderful young woman and recently married her in the temple.  Deciding not to go on a mission even though he could see that it would have been a good experience for him.

Good move or not, do you think?  For him,  I mean. 

Its hard to say what is a good decision or not for either your example or mine.  On the surface it sounds like this young man is having a lot of success.  I'm trying to highlight how our upbringing and assumptions based on our environment, influences our spiritual experiences, and ask the question about whether or not this type of thinking is capable of helping us to make the best choices in life.  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry- I am not getting this at all.

So you should NOT do what your gut tells you to do because that's the way you were raised?  Whatever you think is best- do the opposite??  I do not understand at all.

And not getting married for this person and going on a mission is wrong ...  and you know so ....why?

If you do not sit down and examine all the factors in your mind and consult your deepest feelings and make a decision, how DO you make such decisions?

Sorry- I honestly do not understand the post.  Do you ignore all values you have been raised with and do what- ask someone else to make the decision for you because they know better?

Should your hypothetical person have consulted his science teacher about getting married vs a mission instead of perhaps a bishop?

What if you were conditioned in your childhood to consult a computer for logical answers to your life problems and firmly follow them disregarding emotions in all cases?

Why get married at all?

The issue here is what makes you happy regardless of values.  There are no "better" decisions about these matters objectively, yet it seems you want your person to follow YOUR values instead of the ones they were raised with?  Why should they do that?

Wow, interesting.  Did you just say there are no objectively better decisions a person can make in life? Its all in your mind, what you think is right is correct because it aligns with your internal values.  Does this mean there are no objective value judgments about ethics or morality, its all relative at the end of the day?  

My point I was trying to make about spiritual experiences is that these experiences are heavily influenced by a person's environment.  Actually, I think its possible that they are 100% influenced by a person's upbringing and cultural surroundings. 

I don't think a person should ignore their internal values or go to the extreme of choosing the opposite.  But I also don't think a person should ignore the reality that their spiritual feelings are heavily influences by these things.  You seemed to indicate earlier that spiritual experiences are key to making the most important life decisions.  Well, wouldn't it be important to understand how spiritual experiences actually work in our minds and how we are influenced by our environment?  

The metaphysics of my Mormon religious upbringing has taught me that the holy spirit is a personage that is external to my mind, a divine entity that has omniscience, and through communion with this entity I can make decisions that will be objectively more profitable for me and my family.  There is no discussion about how spiritual experiences are influenced by my upbringing and learning, and culturally influenced biases.  

Think of the Spencer Kimball story about the priesthood ban, he said he was willing to go to his grave defending this practice if that is what the Lord wanted.  From my vantage, it took a lot of things happening to get him to open his mind enough to overcome cultural biases he had already built in that were biasing him to believe that the priesthood ban was ordained of God.