Rain Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Why do you think the Church requests us to read from the scriptures daily? is it not because they are the magical source to get the Spirit and learnings that we can't get elsewhere? That's the message I've always gotten. From what else does the Church suggest we read daily? I've never got the impression that we can't get it elsewhere, just that they are one of the most important ways to get it, though I do feel it would be difficult (though not impossible) of getting the full measure of the Spirit without them. The church teaches us to read them daily because it is one of the most effective ways, not the only way. 2
The Mean Farmer Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 This is one persons opinion on why it is important: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng I tend to agree with his point of view. 1
rongo Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 On 5/4/2017 at 9:57 AM, stemelbow said: Let down. Since perspective is so biased, it's likely we can't say much more than this [i.e., that people who read the scriptures will feel the spiritual power if they test it] in describing vaunted blessings for this, I suppose. With the most fundamental things, all those who know can do is testify to others and invite them to test it for themselves. And then either people will, or they won't.
carbon dioxide Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 On 5/4/2017 at 7:07 AM, stemelbow said: What does reading the scriptures daily give us? Is there magic in such an action? Or is it possible we gain just as much if we read other things, meditate on other teachings daily? Maybe it's not our canonical scriptures that carry great influence but the act of reading, pondering and praying. If so, can't we read many things and get inspiration, just as much or more so? I'd say yes. what does everyone else think? Who says you can't do those other things in addition to reading the scriptures? If one wants to be good at anything in life, it requires practice and time put into it. The more time a doctor spends reading medical journals and other things, the better he will be and keeping up in his field. The more an athlete works out and practices their craft, the better they will be when they compete. It is no different with spiritual stuff. If one wants God to be more involved in their lives, more knowledge of the scriptures, ect they better invest some time in it. Its all based on the parable of the 10 virgins. Putting oil in the lamp. Expecting to cram for the finals at the last minute usually does not work and will not work in our eternal journey. 4
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2017 Author Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Rain said: I've never got the impression that we can't get it elsewhere, just that they are one of the most important ways to get it, though I do feel it would be difficult (though not impossible) of getting the full measure of the Spirit without them. The church teaches us to read them daily because it is one of the most effective ways, not the only way. Well I'd agree. I just have never seen the Church teach what you are saying.
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2017 Author Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: With the most fundamental things, all those who know can do is testify to others and invite them to test it for themselves. And then either people will, or they won't. Hey Rongo, I have acknowledged the reading the scriptures are useful and good. So I'm not sure what you are suggesting exactly. Are you saying people should testify that the only way to maximize your own individual experience with the SPirit and truth is to read the scripture daily (as in not study but read them)? If so, what would testifying of that proposition mean?
CV75 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Well I'd agree. I just have never seen the Church teach what you are saying. Now if you would read your scriptures daily, I’m sure you will eventually find, be impressed by, and remember the following: “Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—“ (D&C 88:78-79) “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118). And as if He had to repeat Himself: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith…” (D&C109:7). 2
rongo Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Hey Rongo, I have acknowledged the reading the scriptures are useful and good. So I'm not sure what you are suggesting exactly. Are you saying people should testify that the only way to maximize your own individual experience with the SPirit and truth is to read the scripture daily (as in not study but read them)? If so, what would testifying of that proposition mean? Merely that regular reading (and study) of the scriptures benefits and strengthens us spiritually --- and that those who don't know this for themselves can test this and see if their experience is the same. I find that people (in general, not pointing at you) often give lip service to reading the scriptures ("sure, it's important"), but usually when people say they read/study other things instead of the scriptures, they don't really read or study the scriptures much at all. Or in some cases, they used to but haven't for a long time (Duncan's bishopric member who stated that he knows all the stories and doesn't read them any more comes to mind). For them, reading about the scriptures (to the extent that their reading/study is in some way connected with the scriptures) is all they are interested in. It has been my experience that regular, consistent reading/study of the scriptures themselves, even when we are very familiar with them (or even know them perfectly) allows us to daily renew our feeling of the Spirit. Elder Oaks pointed out the difference between remembering something that happened 25 years ago (hazy, faded memory, etc.) with something that happened today or yesterday, and taught that by renewing our feeling the Spirit through prayer and scripture study, our testimonies are constantly renewed and as strong as they were at their strongest. When people don't do this, this feeling fades. A common argument from some people is that they feel the Spirit just as strong reading a scholarly work about the scriptures or whatever. This hasn't been my experience, and I think these people have the potential renewing of the Spirit fade, when it could have been renewed. 2
hope_for_things Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 On 5/5/2017 at 7:11 AM, bluebell said: So you're world view isn't more superior or enlightened, just more grown up and mature? Yes, on this particular subject. I'm sure there are many other subjects that I'm much less mature.
hope_for_things Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) On 5/5/2017 at 8:26 AM, BlueDreams said: I consider what I just wrote and what you just wrote NOT simply about challenging a mormon world view or mormon cultural conditioning....they're more indicators of us than some greater cultural context. The taboo for you may be challenged, but I've been swimming in these waters for a long time. I don't feel those being challenged when I watch a movie that ends up being too violent, into gratuitous sex, or littered with f-bombs. For me and my experience its the spirit and the concern of become too desensitized to things that my maturation and development and education says "uh-no." Thanks for sharing the detailed post about your perspectives. Its very interesting to see how we have different experiences on content, what you find disturbing and what you don't and that these perspectives have changed with time. I have a question for you about your comments about what you've found detrimental to how you experience the spirit and what you've found that hasn't been. For example you mentioned that for sexual content you aren't very sensitive to what others including myself might be sensitive too. I believe that what you've described as far as less sensitivity to sexual content is based primarily on your personality, background and experiences in life. This has a direct correlation with what you describe as sensitivity to the spirit. The examples you shared are further evidence to me that what a person experiences as "the spirit" is a personal and subjective experience that is influenced by that persons personality and background. Would you agree? On 5/5/2017 at 8:26 AM, BlueDreams said: I have been both the "no r-rated" camp and not. I didn't find the taboo somehow an indication of limitation and immaturity. And I sure as heck don't see how when I watched r-rated content that it somehow enhanced my adult development. When I was younger it was often a bit of a deterrence. That angry spell I mentioned was deeply helped by a music detox where I basically only listened to classical music for about a year. Several of the things in my life that have developed me the most were well outside of media influence. These experiences made me more compassionate, patient, spiritually in tune, and accepting of nuance and differences. I remember on my mission particularly having a moment where I saw a magazine, recognized the actors from a show I watched, and realized I couldn't remember the show's name. I couldn't remember half of what I watched. I watch an inordinate amount of shows, usually when I'm doing mundane tasks. It's entertainment, not enrichment 85% of the time. I do watch things that make me think and I find enlightening. But at least half of that (if not more) are documentaries with little to no sex, language, or violence portrayed. I haven't found much to gain to the R-rated movies I've watched when it comes to difficult challenges of the human experience. It may have helped you in some ways. That's yours. But this certainly doesn't represent others. And for the record I'm very rarely worried about God's retribution in my decisions at this point. At a younger age, yes. But at this point it has basically nothing to do with anything I do. All those moments when I mention offending the spirit or feeling decentered isn't about punishment to me but a deep intrinsic desire for me to be close to God above all else. I would give up every TV show and movie I watched if I felt it seriously withdraw me from the spirit or if I felt that's what God was asking of me. I think what I find distasteful about the Mormon cultural taboo placed on R rated movies is how it takes away the agency of that person to decide for themselves what they find valuable or not, as they have outsourced that agency to an authority figure. It also puts too much emphasis on behaviors that honestly I don't find have real value for society. If a few swear words can cause us to not engage with people, to shun those who may need us the most, then I think we've failed to follow the example of Jesus. I can't imagine a scenario where the Jesus of the NT would avoid interacting with people or learning about the real life challenges of people as portrayed in films today, because of certain content that our culture has defined as unsavory. Edited May 8, 2017 by hope_for_things
stemelbow Posted May 8, 2017 Author Posted May 8, 2017 On 5/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, rongo said: Merely that regular reading (and study) of the scriptures benefits and strengthens us spiritually --- and that those who don't know this for themselves can test this and see if their experience is the same. I find that people (in general, not pointing at you) often give lip service to reading the scriptures ("sure, it's important"), I had forgotten this thread and missed this last week, until I decided to go back and read the thread again. So who are these people that give lip service to reading the scriptures and yet don't read them? How do you know they don't read them if they say they do? On 5/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, rongo said: but usually when people say they read/study other things instead of the scriptures, they don't really read or study the scriptures much at all. And how do you know that "usually when people say they" do something that that really don't? On 5/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, rongo said: Or in some cases, they used to but haven't for a long time (Duncan's bishopric member who stated that he knows all the stories and doesn't read them any more comes to mind). For them, reading about the scriptures (to the extent that their reading/study is in some way connected with the scriptures) is all they are interested in. Hm...So I wonder who are these "they" and if "they"'d feel that you have accurately characterized them. On 5/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, rongo said: It has been my experience that regular, consistent reading/study of the scriptures themselves, even when we are very familiar with them (or even know them perfectly) allows us to daily renew our feeling of the Spirit. Elder Oaks pointed out the difference between remembering something that happened 25 years ago (hazy, faded memory, etc.) with something that happened today or yesterday, and taught that by renewing our feeling the Spirit through prayer and scripture study, our testimonies are constantly renewed and as strong as they were at their strongest. When people don't do this, this feeling fades. So what people are we talking about here? Are you saying you have gone through stretches where you haven't read your scriptures daily and thus you don't have your testimony constantly renewed and as strong as it was at it's strongest? If so, how or why would you think this is the same for others? Perhaps other people are by far better strengthened in their testimony by not reading the scriptures as much. You simply wouldn't know that. So I declare your conclusion about everyone else is short-sighted, ill-conceived and problematic. On 5/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, rongo said: A common argument from some people is that they feel the Spirit just as strong reading a scholarly work about the scriptures or whatever. This hasn't been my experience, and I think these people have the potential renewing of the Spirit fade, when it could have been renewed. My goodness...that's a terrible view of other people.
bluebell Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, on this particular subject. I'm sure there are many other subjects that I'm much less mature. If you believe that your world view is more mature and grown up then you believe that your world view is more superior and enlightened. Just own it instead of denying something in one breath and claiming it in the next. 2
stemelbow Posted May 8, 2017 Author Posted May 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: If you believe that your world view is more mature and grown up then you believe that your world view is more superior and enlightened. Just own it instead of denying something in one breath and claiming it in the next. I don't know about you, but I'd say tons of people who aren't LDS have a more mature and grown up view about many aspects of religion, say biblical scholarship or something, but many LDS would still think these scholars, if you will, don't have a more superior and enlightened view than we LDS. Many LDS see their view as superior and enlightened, even if it can't possibly considered more mature and grown up. They are not the same thing, Bluebell. You are being unfair to our friend hop_for. 1
bluebell Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know about you, but I'd say tons of people who aren't LDS have a more mature and grown up view about many aspects of religion, say biblical scholarship or something, but many LDS would still think these scholars, if you will, don't have a more superior and enlightened view than we LDS. Many LDS see their view as superior and enlightened, even if it can't possibly considered more mature and grown up. They are not the same thing, Bluebell. You are being unfair to our friend hop_for. I'm not being unfair i'm being reasonable. Hope said that his world view is more mature and grown up than those who have a different world view on R movies. If you say to someone 'your world view is more immature and childish than mine is,' it's very reasonable for them to interpret that as you telling them that you believe your world view is superior to theirs. It pretty straight forward. 2
rongo Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I had forgotten this thread and missed this last week, until I decided to go back and read the thread again. So who are these people that give lip service to reading the scriptures and yet don't read them? How do you know they don't read them if they say they do? Well, you for one. Based on your statements in this thread alone, it seems like you don't read the actual scriptures very much, and don't see much use in reading them that you can't get as well or better in other sources, like self-help books. Here are some things you have said: Maybe it's not our canonical scriptures that carry great influence but the act of reading, pondering and praying. If so, can't we read many things and get inspiration, just as much or more so? I'd say yes. Must we daily read from the BOM, for instance . . . I ask because I can get all of that by not reading the scriptures in our canon or not. I can get it from reading nearly anything out there, meditating and pondering many things. So why must scriptures be read daily? Why not read, ponder and pray with our without scriptures? But you don't need family scripture study to do any of that. I don't see the need for scriptures to do any of this, though. You can use any inspiring business self-help books with the same results, it seems to me. Are you suggesting there's something exceptionally special about what is in our canon that can be more beneficial to humans if they study it daily then any other source? I find the view of the Church constricting and more of a confirmation bias thing. What I gain from reading from the canon, can be good, at times, but I find it's no more useful or good then if I read many other things, and quite often less useful in a spiritual sense. ---- As for others, because they tell me they don't read/don't like to read the scriptures. And their sentiments are very much like yours quoted above. And how do you know that "usually when people say they" do something that that really don't? In this particular instance, every time that I have had a conversation where people extol the virtues of reading things other than the scriptures in lieu of (in place of) the scriptures --- but maintain that they still find value in the scriptures --- they don't actually read the scriptures very often. And they are hard-pressed to give detailed reasons and examples of what and why they find the scriptures (that they don't read very often) to be of value. So what people are we talking about here? Are you saying you have gone through stretches where you haven't read your scriptures daily and thus you don't have your testimony constantly renewed and as strong as it was at it's strongest? Absolutely. Most recently, on January 1, 2015, I decided to begin reading the scriptures daily again. My scripture study had become sporadic and spotty --- not non-existent, but certainly not daily --- and it was easy (New Year's resolution mindset, which I normally don't like, but . . .) to be determined not to let any day be "the" day that broke the chain. I haven't missed a day since then. The difference in my life was huge. On May 3 of 2015, I was called to be a bishop again, and I'm glad that I had already been solidly in the scripture habit well before then. If so, how or why would you think this is the same for others? Because of what the Brethren have taught regarding this. I'm in good company. Perhaps other people are by far better strengthened in their testimony by not reading the scriptures as much. You simply wouldn't know that. So I declare your conclusion about everyone else is short-sighted, ill-conceived and problematic. That's fine. Of course, this wouldn't be another example of you chafing against normative Mormon teaching and practice, would it? My goodness...that's a terrible view of other people. That I don't believe people who think that they "feel the Spirit just as strong reading a scholarly work about the scriptures or whatever." Why is that a "terrible view of other people?"
stemelbow Posted May 8, 2017 Author Posted May 8, 2017 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I'm not being unfair i'm being reasonable. Hope said that his world view is more mature and grown up than those who have a different world view on R movies. If you say to someone 'your world view is more immature and childish than mine is,' it's very reasonable for them to interpret that as you telling them that you believe your world view is superior to theirs. It pretty straight forward. I disagree of course, as per my explanation. I see LDS claiming in many avenues to have the more enlightened and superior view. Some even say things about how scholars are ignorant because they don't have the enlightened and superior view of LDS folks. But, its quite possible and in some cases likely, these same LDS recognize that scholars still have a more mature and grown up view on these very topics. I'd say biblical scholars have a more mature and grown up view on things like biblical scholarship even if some LDS view themselves as having a more enlightened and superior view of the Bible. Hope that helps where I and Hope_for are coming from. I still think you are being unfair and unreasonable on this. 1
stemelbow Posted May 8, 2017 Author Posted May 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Well, you for one. Based on your statements in this thread alone, it seems like you don't read the actual scriptures very much, and don't see much use in reading them that you can't get as well or better in other sources, like self-help books. You just got done saying that it is not me. Now you think it is me. Well, that's silly Rongo. Where did I tell you I read the scriptures? I don't think I've told you that. So I can't possibly be one who tells you I read them but does not. I will add, though. I do read them. And I get plenty from them. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Here are some things you have said: Maybe it's not our canonical scriptures that carry great influence but the act of reading, pondering and praying. If so, can't we read many things and get inspiration, just as much or more so? I'd say yes. Must we daily read from the BOM, for instance . . . I ask because I can get all of that by not reading the scriptures in our canon or not. I can get it from reading nearly anything out there, meditating and pondering many things. So why must scriptures be read daily? Why not read, ponder and pray with our without scriptures? But you don't need family scripture study to do any of that. I don't see the need for scriptures to do any of this, though. You can use any inspiring business self-help books with the same results, it seems to me. Are you suggesting there's something exceptionally special about what is in our canon that can be more beneficial to humans if they study it daily then any other source? I find the view of the Church constricting and more of a confirmation bias thing. What I gain from reading from the canon, can be good, at times, but I find it's no more useful or good then if I read many other things, and quite often less useful in a spiritual sense. Alright, so I'm not seeing anything in this that says I read them, but I actually do not. I really don't think you pay much attention to those whom you accuse. I get plenty from the scriptures. I get plenty from other avenues too. As your conclusion was made, I realize why you struggle with the view I hold and want to make it something it is not. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: ---- As for others, because they tell me they don't read/don't like to read the scriptures. And their sentiments are very much like yours quoted above. If they had said what I did, then you have misread them, misunderstood. You simply don't seem to pay attention much to those whom you wish to accuse. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: In this particular instance, every time that I have had a conversation where people extol the virtues of reading things other than the scriptures in lieu of (in place of) the scriptures --- but maintain that they still find value in the scriptures --- they don't actually read the scriptures very often. And they are hard-pressed to give detailed reasons and examples of what and why they find the scriptures (that they don't read very often) to be of value. Really odd. When I asked for clarification from you about what benefits you get from reading, you basically said, you can only know if you do it. Thus it seems you too are hard-pressed to give detailed reasons and examples of what and why you find the scriptures to be of value. I'm sorry to come after you, but this is a really dreadful approach you are taking. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Absolutely. Most recently, on January 1, 2015, I decided to begin reading the scriptures daily again. My scripture study had become sporadic and spotty --- not non-existent, but certainly not daily --- and it was easy (New Year's resolution mindset, which I normally don't like, but . . .) to be determined not to let any day be "the" day that broke the chain. I haven't missed a day since then. The difference in my life was huge. On May 3 of 2015, I was called to be a bishop again, and I'm glad that I had already been solidly in the scripture habit well before then. your experience doesn't necessarily translate to others. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Because of what the Brethren have taught regarding this. I'm in good company. Ok so you are summarizing what others have told you? Fine, but it surely didn't come off that way. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: That's fine. Of course, this wouldn't be another example of you chafing against normative Mormon teaching and practice, would it? Of course not. 8 minutes ago, rongo said: That I don't believe people who think that they "feel the Spirit just as strong reading a scholarly work about the scriptures or whatever." Why is that a "terrible view of other people?" Let's re-read what you wrote: Quote A common argument from some people is that they feel the Spirit just as strong reading a scholarly work about the scriptures or whatever. This hasn't been my experience, and I think these people have the potential renewing of the Spirit fade, when it could have been renewed. So if people read things that are scholarly about the "scriptures or whatever" and feel the spirit like they do when they read the scriptures, you assume "these people" will have the Spirit fade? Is that because you assume those who do so can't possibly feel the Spirit quite like you do when you read the scriptures? Why do you think that way about "these people"?
hope_for_things Posted May 8, 2017 Posted May 8, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: If you believe that your world view is more mature and grown up then you believe that your world view is more superior and enlightened. Just own it instead of denying something in one breath and claiming it in the next. Perhaps that is what I'm saying and if so I'll own it. I'm trying to be charitable, and therefore I wouldn't have used those words, but if they essentially mean the same thing then so be it. I'm not in the business of trying to turn people off through using divisive language. I don't think that avoiding R rated movies as a principle is a mature or healthy approach for adults. 1
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted May 8, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 8, 2017 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for sharing the detailed post about your perspectives. Its very interesting to see how we have different experiences on content, what you find disturbing and what you don't and that these perspectives have changed with time. I have a question for you about your comments about what you've found detrimental to how you experience the spirit and what you've found that hasn't been. For example you mentioned that for sexual content you aren't very sensitive to what others including myself might be sensitive too. I believe that what you've described as far as less sensitivity to sexual content is based primarily on your personality, background and experiences in life. This has a direct correlation with what you describe as sensitivity to the spirit. The examples you shared are further evidence to me that what a person experiences as "the spirit" is a personal and subjective experience that is influenced by that persons personality and background. Would you agree? Ehh. Not exactly. I agree with the Spirit is very personal. I don't assume that my answers necessarily are someone else's and I say the examples of shows I give are fine, but they're all subject to change. I've stopped watching shows mid season because it grows wearing after a while. Even on shows that Have said content that i can handle, It can still be too much at time. I wouldn't say they're entirely subjective. More contextual. There are shows and documentaries I've watched about sex that I found informative and helpful for me, but that I would not necessarily even show to another because I know their circumstances enough to know that it would be highly inappropriate for them. Based on their struggles or issues. And even with these, I had to space them out because they could become too much. I think they probably still have a price tag on them spiritually a bit...and sometimes I do wonder if part of that is desensitization to material. I was most sensitive to certain things after my mission when I also felt more spiritually in tune. And I had to cut more shows when I was in need of Strong support by the Spirit in some troubling times. In other words the price tag for some of these shows that I mentioned a was just too high at the time. Quote think what I find distasteful about the Mormon cultural taboo placed on R rated movies is how it takes away the agency of that person to decide for themselves what they find valuable or not, as they have outsourced that agency to an authority figure. It also puts too much emphasis on behaviors that honestly I don't find have real value for society. If a few swear words can cause us to not engage with people, to shun those who may need us the most, then I think we've failed to follow the example of Jesus. I can't imagine a scenario where the Jesus of the NT would avoid interacting with people or learning about the real life challenges of people as portrayed in films today, because of certain content that our culture has defined as unsavory. I don't see how it takes from agency anymore than saying you're not to drink alcohol does. Or keep the sabbath. Or any other guidance given. It's still your choice as to what you do with that guidance. And I'm not uber tied to the cultural clout to worry about it. I think the guiding principle is generally true. But that came from spiritual impression and working it out for myself. And it feels that you use culture and religious principle interchangeably in a way that I don't necessarily think they are. Certain things are unsavory and I can't imagine Jesus being a big proponent of them either. It doesn't mean shunning people, but it can mean suggesting discomfort at certain things or asking to not talk about certain things. It's called boundaries. One can get a picture of the world without this specific media or exposure. I think it puts overemphasis on generalized exposure to all things as good. It's not to me. i'm not sure what THE answer is to this or if there is one. I wish that I could have been more sheltered growing up, but also know that some of the things that I was exposed to were apart of my personal development (not movies or other forms of media...more like situations and people). I don't generally put value as to whether that makes me more mature or not. It's made me different. Some of those differences are assets. Some inert. Some are my weaknesses. Likewise for someone less exposed to language, excess/gratuitous sexuality, drugs and violence. With luv, BD 5
Avatar4321 Posted May 9, 2017 Posted May 9, 2017 What you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Do it and see the results. I've been reading in the Book of Mormon and New Testament everyday. I find my days go better when I start them off refreshing my spirit.
hope_for_things Posted May 9, 2017 Posted May 9, 2017 15 hours ago, BlueDreams said: Ehh. Not exactly. I agree with the Spirit is very personal. I don't assume that my answers necessarily are someone else's and I say the examples of shows I give are fine, but they're all subject to change. I've stopped watching shows mid season because it grows wearing after a while. Even on shows that Have said content that i can handle, It can still be too much at time. I wouldn't say they're entirely subjective. More contextual. There are shows and documentaries I've watched about sex that I found informative and helpful for me, but that I would not necessarily even show to another because I know their circumstances enough to know that it would be highly inappropriate for them. Based on their struggles or issues. And even with these, I had to space them out because they could become too much. I think they probably still have a price tag on them spiritually a bit...and sometimes I do wonder if part of that is desensitization to material. I was most sensitive to certain things after my mission when I also felt more spiritually in tune. And I had to cut more shows when I was in need of Strong support by the Spirit in some troubling times. In other words the price tag for some of these shows that I mentioned a was just too high at the time. Thanks for the extra clarifications. It sounds to me like you believe context and circumstances are influencing factors, but that this sensitivity to the spirit is not entirely subjective. Is this because you believe in "the spirit" as an external entity(in Mormon context a personage) and that "the spirit" has unique values and sensitivities independent of your personal circumstances/context/environment. "The spirit" can be offended by or turned away when people are participating in activities that "the spirit" finds offensive? Recently as I've looked more widely at the experiences of other people in different cultures and religious traditions, I've become impressed at how many of these people experience the same kinds of things that we do in the Mormon context, things like feeling "the spirit", but that their interpretations of what "the spirit" is telling them is filtered by their very different cultural understandings. For example, a Muslim that feels "the spirit" confirming the teaching that women who don't cover their heads are immodest, or an orthodox Jew that feels "the spirit" when they are following the strict rules of their Sabbath observance. Breaking these rules of your culture/religion can cause great distress, and this distress is often interpreted as a loss of God's favor in a very significant way. "The spirit" is offended for these people too. This makes me question the Mormon traditional explanation for what this spirit is and how it influences us. How do you explain the experiences that others in different cultures/religions have? If your experience with "the spirit" has had contextually contributing factors, how do you know that it isn't entirely made up of environmental circumstances. What evidence do you have that there is something that isn't entirely subjective about spiritual experiences? 15 hours ago, BlueDreams said: I don't see how it takes from agency anymore than saying you're not to drink alcohol does. Or keep the sabbath. Or any other guidance given. It's still your choice as to what you do with that guidance. And I'm not uber tied to the cultural clout to worry about it. I think the guiding principle is generally true. But that came from spiritual impression and working it out for myself. And it feels that you use culture and religious principle interchangeably in a way that I don't necessarily think they are. Certain things are unsavory and I can't imagine Jesus being a big proponent of them either. It doesn't mean shunning people, but it can mean suggesting discomfort at certain things or asking to not talk about certain things. It's called boundaries. One can get a picture of the world without this specific media or exposure. I think it puts overemphasis on generalized exposure to all things as good. It's not to me. i'm not sure what THE answer is to this or if there is one. I wish that I could have been more sheltered growing up, but also know that some of the things that I was exposed to were apart of my personal development (not movies or other forms of media...more like situations and people). I don't generally put value as to whether that makes me more mature or not. It's made me different. Some of those differences are assets. Some inert. Some are my weaknesses. Likewise for someone less exposed to language, excess/gratuitous sexuality, drugs and violence. I'm open to persuasion on these points. Lately I've been thinking that its all about conditioning. As for the agency argument from Mormonism, I think this is a big misapplication. This idea that you're exercising your agency by following a rule/commandment from a church authority. In the strictest sense this may technically be true. Does this mean that a dog who's been trained to follow commands is exercising agency by being told to roll over or sit up? When you do something simply out of deference to authority, I don't think that's a meaningful application of agency that requires a mature weighing of situational ethics. I think it shows that you're a good soldier. I think there is a need for soldiers in this world, but I don't think this is the call to become more like God. I think the call to become like God is the call to wrestle with serious ethical dilemmas. It is through the balancing of challenging situations that we are forced to make difficult choices. This is the crucible that we have to experience in order to grow.
BlueDreams Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 On 5/9/2017 at 9:28 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the extra clarifications. It sounds to me like you believe context and circumstances are influencing factors, but that this sensitivity to the spirit is not entirely subjective. Is this because you believe in "the spirit" as an external entity(in Mormon context a personage) and that "the spirit" has unique values and sensitivities independent of your personal circumstances/context/environment. "The spirit" can be offended by or turned away when people are participating in activities that "the spirit" finds offensive? Recently as I've looked more widely at the experiences of other people in different cultures and religious traditions, I've become impressed at how many of these people experience the same kinds of things that we do in the Mormon context, things like feeling "the spirit", but that their interpretations of what "the spirit" is telling them is filtered by their very different cultural understandings. For example, a Muslim that feels "the spirit" confirming the teaching that women who don't cover their heads are immodest, or an orthodox Jew that feels "the spirit" when they are following the strict rules of their Sabbath observance. Breaking these rules of your culture/religion can cause great distress, and this distress is often interpreted as a loss of God's favor in a very significant way. "The spirit" is offended for these people too. This makes me question the Mormon traditional explanation for what this spirit is and how it influences us. How do you explain the experiences that others in different cultures/religions have? If your experience with "the spirit" has had contextually contributing factors, how do you know that it isn't entirely made up of environmental circumstances. What evidence do you have that there is something that isn't entirely subjective about spiritual experiences? Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier, but my week got away from me. First, I'm ok with other people feeling spiritual influences. I expect it because of my LDS background that acknowledges that all of us on earth have an innate connection to deity. I'm also ok that specific manifestations of that may vary while maintaining a similar thread in values. There is something universal when it comes to the things that exemplify God most. Such as charity, mercy, healing, etc. That said, just because I believe that there is something distinctive about the the Spirit...something beyond just me and my sentiment. I have had plenty of moments in my own life, let alone other cultures, where it's difficult to hedge what is coming from my cultural background and what is actually the spirit. Culture is something that I find very intriguing. I've had close contact to several varying ones that's given me some fluidity to moving in it. I wouldn't pretend to be above culture or unaffected...but I can sense a difference to when something feels like it's "wrong" because it goes against my cultural norms and when it's "wrong" because it's the wrong direction. Sometimes these directly conflict. Based off of my education and reactivity towards my family circumstances I've had this hyper awareness of what, statistically, would give me the best results and best chances for a healthy relationship in marriage. It is my biggest goal...to have a healthy family. Honestly, I've had moments where I'm close to paranoid about it. I can't think of anything that is more ingrained in me than this urge. Yet for years I felt prompted by the spirit to follow a course that went against this. Really against this. I hated it at times. More than at times. It was feasibly one of the most conflicting experiences. At one point I outright refused to continue this way, did my thing on my terms for about a week, fell apart from the spiritual dissonance,T and felt better when I stopped. What was spiritually "wrong" was also what was personally and culturally "right" in my head. Obviously this is anectdotal. I can't simply give evidence to spiritual experiences because the said experience in the end is deeply personal. That incongruent experience that's left me still single and still scratching my head has also changed me intrinsically in a way that has left me a better human being. More compassionate, more patient, more mature. I was in my car today, windows down, music playing, and felt this absolute joy for what was a painful experience. I have found myself grateful for my pain. It makes no sense. But it's what it is. The spirit for me at least, hasn't really been about alligning to social ques and expectations. But I can't speak for others in the least on this. Quote I'm open to persuasion on these points. Lately I've been thinking that its all about conditioning. As for the agency argument from Mormonism, I think this is a big misapplication. This idea that you're exercising your agency by following a rule/commandment from a church authority. In the strictest sense this may technically be true. Does this mean that a dog who's been trained to follow commands is exercising agency by being told to roll over or sit up? When you do something simply out of deference to authority, I don't think that's a meaningful application of agency that requires a mature weighing of situational ethics. I think it shows that you're a good soldier. I think there is a need for soldiers in this world, but I don't think this is the call to become more like God. I think the call to become like God is the call to wrestle with serious ethical dilemmas. It is through the balancing of challenging situations that we are forced to make difficult choices. This is the crucible that we have to experience in order to grow. I find it odd to compare this to a dog. I don't see this as conditioning. I'm honestly barely following your train of thought on this one. In part because it feels very disjointed to who I am as a person. To give you an idea, I was in this group therapy session for my program and I was sharing some things. At one point the facilitator asked me how I interacted with my authority figures in my life. I looked at him quizzically and stated "I don't have authority figures." And it's true....ironically, I'm a bit anti-authority. I really struggle when someone tells me to do somthing that I don't agree with and often flatout push back on it in one way or another. I don't listen to you simply because of a station or calling. I listen to you because I choose to. So I don't get what you're describing. I have followed social/cultural expectations before...but it's always been a choice. Mine that I've conscientiously made at some point. From my own experiences the call to become like God to me, isn't simply about wrestling ethical dilemmas, it's about learning to heed God no matter what, trusting that doing so will bring a deeper value and meaning to life. I don't value obedience for obedience sake. I think of the story of Adam and Eve a lot when they made sacrifice without really knowing why. It was good that they were listening, but they needed to have meaning to it. They needed to seek out why things were as they were. There are people who probably follow all sorts of expectations and guidance from the church just because that's what's expected of them. But it doesn't mean that all do. In this thread there were several who very apparently held reasons for what they chose and followed through. This feels like you're working from an assumed caricature of obedience, authority, and prophetic guidance. One I simply don't ascribe to. With luv, BD 3
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 On 5/9/2017 at 8:28 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the extra clarifications. It sounds to me like you believe context and circumstances are influencing factors, but that this sensitivity to the spirit is not entirely subjective. Is this because you believe in "the spirit" as an external entity(in Mormon context a personage) and that "the spirit" has unique values and sensitivities independent of your personal circumstances/context/environment. "The spirit" can be offended by or turned away when people are participating in activities that "the spirit" finds offensive? Recently as I've looked more widely at the experiences of other people in different cultures and religious traditions, I've become impressed at how many of these people experience the same kinds of things that we do in the Mormon context, things like feeling "the spirit", but that their interpretations of what "the spirit" is telling them is filtered by their very different cultural understandings. For example, a Muslim that feels "the spirit" confirming the teaching that women who don't cover their heads are immodest, or an orthodox Jew that feels "the spirit" when they are following the strict rules of their Sabbath observance. Breaking these rules of your culture/religion can cause great distress, and this distress is often interpreted as a loss of God's favor in a very significant way. "The spirit" is offended for these people too. This makes me question the Mormon traditional explanation for what this spirit is and how it influences us. How do you explain the experiences that others in different cultures/religions have? If your experience with "the spirit" has had contextually contributing factors, how do you know that it isn't entirely made up of environmental circumstances. What evidence do you have that there is something that isn't entirely subjective about spiritual experiences? I'm open to persuasion on these points. Lately I've been thinking that its all about conditioning. As for the agency argument from Mormonism, I think this is a big misapplication. This idea that you're exercising your agency by following a rule/commandment from a church authority. In the strictest sense this may technically be true. Does this mean that a dog who's been trained to follow commands is exercising agency by being told to roll over or sit up? When you do something simply out of deference to authority, I don't think that's a meaningful application of agency that requires a mature weighing of situational ethics. I think it shows that you're a good soldier. I think there is a need for soldiers in this world, but I don't think this is the call to become more like God. I think the call to become like God is the call to wrestle with serious ethical dilemmas. It is through the balancing of challenging situations that we are forced to make difficult choices. This is the crucible that we have to experience in order to grow. Religion is an attitude for seeking the best in ourselves and not a question of scientific investigation of a god who is "out there" like chairs and tables to be tripped over or discovered scientifically There are other religions in the world which might be right for certain individuals and not others at this time in their lives but this does not take away from the idea that there is ONE religion which is better for all people at all times, while allowing that some other paths will lead to the one path eventually. I see it as the evolution of morality. I think all societies eventually would have to come up with the Golden Rule or some formation of it in order to have a peaceful society where everyone treats all as they would like to be treated. That sort of belief system just has survival value. The family is the basis for all humanity and that religion which teaches that "families can be forever" as a paradigm is bound to be seen as the "only true and living church" simply because it affirms the apotheosis of the family. I think there is no better model for religion and no better paradigm.
Raingirl Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Doctrine Matters said: If, by Scripture, you mean the Bible, God's Word trains us, helps us grow in the Spirit, and gives us discernment to recognize false teachers and teachings. But there is more scripture than just that which is found in the Bible. This is a Mormon discussion board, so you should know that. I suspect your statement about "discernment" is very telling regarding that.
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 On 5/9/2017 at 8:28 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the extra clarifications. It sounds to me like you believe context and circumstances are influencing factors, but that this sensitivity to the spirit is not entirely subjective. Is this because you believe in "the spirit" as an external entity(in Mormon context a personage) and that "the spirit" has unique values and sensitivities independent of your personal circumstances/context/environment. "The spirit" can be offended by or turned away when people are participating in activities that "the spirit" finds offensive? Recently as I've looked more widely at the experiences of other people in different cultures and religious traditions, I've become impressed at how many of these people experience the same kinds of things that we do in the Mormon context, things like feeling "the spirit", but that their interpretations of what "the spirit" is telling them is filtered by their very different cultural understandings. For example, a Muslim that feels "the spirit" confirming the teaching that women who don't cover their heads are immodest, or an orthodox Jew that feels "the spirit" when they are following the strict rules of their Sabbath observance. Breaking these rules of your culture/religion can cause great distress, and this distress is often interpreted as a loss of God's favor in a very significant way. "The spirit" is offended for these people too. This makes me question the Mormon traditional explanation for what this spirit is and how it influences us. How do you explain the experiences that others in different cultures/religions have? If your experience with "the spirit" has had contextually contributing factors, how do you know that it isn't entirely made up of environmental circumstances. What evidence do you have that there is something that isn't entirely subjective about spiritual experiences? I'm open to persuasion on these points. Lately I've been thinking that its all about conditioning. As for the agency argument from Mormonism, I think this is a big misapplication. This idea that you're exercising your agency by following a rule/commandment from a church authority. In the strictest sense this may technically be true. Does this mean that a dog who's been trained to follow commands is exercising agency by being told to roll over or sit up? When you do something simply out of deference to authority, I don't think that's a meaningful application of agency that requires a mature weighing of situational ethics. I think it shows that you're a good soldier. I think there is a need for soldiers in this world, but I don't think this is the call to become more like God. I think the call to become like God is the call to wrestle with serious ethical dilemmas. It is through the balancing of challenging situations that we are forced to make difficult choices. This is the crucible that we have to experience in order to grow. Please read this to understand me better if nothing else You can view it on TED here or read the transcript below https://www.ted.com/talks/matthew_o_reilly_am_i_dying_the_honest_answer/transcript?language=en UNDERSTAND the NEEDS of people who are dying. They are not worried about doctrine They are not worried about evidence They are not worried about if God even exists. They are not worried about explanations of theology All they want is PURELY SUBJECTIVE answers! All they want is 1- Relief from Guilt (The Atonement) 2- To be Remembered 3- That their life had meaning. Those are the EMOTIONAL SUBJECTIVE needs that religion gives the answer for. Religion gives us peace- the quest is for what gives your life meaning, not the explanation of the history of the atonement or any mechanics whatsoever. Quote 0:11I've been a critical care EMT for the past seven years in Suffolk County, New York. I've been a first responder in a number of incidents ranging from car accidents to Hurricane Sandy. 0:20If you are like most people, death might be one of your greatest fears. Some of us will see it coming.Some of us won't. There is a little-known documented medical term called impending doom. It's almost a symptom. As a medical provider, I'm trained to respond to this symptom like any other, so when a patient having a heart attack looks at me and says, "I'm going to die today," we are trained to reevaluate the patient's condition. 0:44Throughout my career, I have responded to a number of incidents where the patient had minutes left to live and there was nothing I could do for them. With this, I was faced with a dilemma: Do I tell the dying that they are about to face death, or do I lie to them to comfort them? Early in my career, I faced this dilemma by simply lying. I was afraid. I was afraid if I told them the truth, that they would die in terror, in fear, just grasping for those last moments of life. 1:17That all changed with one incident. Five years ago, I responded to a motorcycle accident. The rider had suffered critical, critical injuries. As I assessed him, I realized that there was nothing that could be done for him, and like so many other cases, he looked me in the eye and asked that question: "Am I going to die?" In that moment, I decided to do something different. I decided to tell him the truth. I decided to tell him that he was going to die and that there was nothing I could do for him. His reaction shocked me to this day. He simply laid back and had a look of acceptance on his face. He was not met with that terror or fear that I thought he would be. He simply laid there, and as I looked into his eyes, I saw inner peace and acceptance. From that moment forward, I decided it was not my place to comfort the dying with my lies.Having responded to many cases since then where patients were in their last moments and there was nothing I could do for them, in almost every case, they have all had the same reaction to the truth, of inner peace and acceptance. In fact, there are three patterns I have observed in all these cases. 2:36The first pattern always kind of shocked me. Regardless of religious belief or cultural background, there's a need for forgiveness. Whether they call it sin or they simply say they have a regret, their guilt is universal. I had once cared for an elderly gentleman who was having a massive heart attack. As I prepared myself and my equipment for his imminent cardiac arrest, I began to tell the patient of his imminent demise. He already knew by my tone of voice and body language. As I placed the defibrillator pads on his chest, prepping for what was going to happen, he looked me in the eye and said, "I wish I had spent more time with my children and grandchildren instead of being selfish with my time." Faced with imminent death, all he wanted was forgiveness. 3:27The second pattern I observe is the need for remembrance. Whether it was to be remembered in my thoughts or their loved ones', they needed to feel that they would be living on. There's a need for immortality within the hearts and thoughts of their loved ones, myself, my crew, or anyone around.Countless times, I have had a patient look me in the eyes and say, "Will you remember me?" 3:53The final pattern I observe always touched me the deepest, to the soul. The dying need to know that their life had meaning. They need to know that they did not waste their life on meaningless tasks. 4:08This came to me very, very early in my career. I had responded to a call. There was a female in her late 50s severely pinned within a vehicle. She had been t-boned at a high rate of speed, critical, critical condition. As the fire department worked to remove her from the car, I climbed in to begin to render care.As we talked, she had said to me, "There was so much more I wanted to do with my life." She had felt she had not left her mark on this Earth. As we talked further, it would turn out that she was a mother of two adopted children who were both on their way to medical school. Because of her, two children had a chance they never would have had otherwise and would go on to save lives in the medical field as medical doctors. It would end up taking 45 minutes to free her from the vehicle. However, she perished prior to freeing her. 5:03I believed what you saw in the movies: when you're in those last moments that it's strictly terror, fear. I have come to realize, regardless of the circumstance, it's generally met with peace and acceptance, that it's the littlest things, the littlest moments, the littlest things you brought into the world that give you peace in those final moments. 5:25Thank you. 5:27(Applause) 3
Recommended Posts