Fallible and Infallible Prophets

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rich Hansen said:

I think this is the crux of the matter.  If fallibility is recognized not only in theory, but in practice as well, faith diminishes. 

Members crave infallibility in their leaders.  Life is simpler that way.  It is like a child trusting in a parent.  Likewise, prophets and apostles foster the idea of infallibility.   Management becomes easier.

If specific mistakes by prophets and apostles are openly acknowledged,  it all falls apart.   

Were I in the shoes of upper church leadership, I would probably operate the same way.  I don't see anything to be gained by becoming democratic.

Faith diminishes because people have to use it?

Faith only works if they have proof?

Huh?

 And we want to keep those people like children right?

Wow.

 That's about all I can say

Wow

 And the primary song "follow the prophet" is aimed at children right?

 Santa Claus phenomenon in the West is kind of strange. We set up kids to become skeptical about what they cannot see  while the most essential ideas  in life remain invisible to proof.

Edited October 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Rich Hansen said:

I think this is the crux of the matter.  If fallibility is recognized not only in theory, but in practice as well, faith diminishes. 

Members crave infallibility in their leaders.  Life is simpler that way.  It is like a child trusting in a parent.  Likewise, prophets and apostles foster the idea of infallibility.   Management becomes easier.

If specific mistakes by prophets and apostles are openly acknowledged,  it all falls apart.   

Were I in the shoes of upper church leadership, I would probably operate the same way.  I don't see anything to be gained by becoming democratic.

Forcing the Lord to step in to correct things. Hmmm, how many times has He done that before?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

......................................................

The practical application of this is to do whatever the President said no matter what because you will never be responsible for your actions. In other words, in practice you treat the President as infallible.

The only problem with that is that it is false doctrine.  Every man is responsible for his own actions, and he cannot pass the buck to somebody else.  Some people do treat their Fuhrer as infallible. That is always a mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is very true but it is not related to papal infallibility. The issue between the two sides has nothing to do with papal infallibility -- neither side is attacking or defending it.

Of course not, but that was not my intended subject -- the criticism of the Pontifex Maximus does happen, both in Peter's time and in ours.  It does no good to equivocate on this, neither for Mormons nor for Catholics.  It has even been an excommunicable offense in the LDS faith to find fault with the Lord's anointed.  Indeed, Cardinal Vigano could find himself silenced by the Pope.

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you look at McConkie's 7 Deadly Heresies talk, you'll find examples of variable teachings amongst prophets and apostles.

I don't recall ever hearing #7 taught, but I've heard or read the other 6 heresies taught by leaders over the years.

There are plenty of non-members who believe that we believe #7, however.

And I have heard of members who have left the church because they believed it, and also believed they couldn't achieve it.

[Spammer]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I discovered the Church of JCLDS and found exactly what God was leading toward my whole life with "true testimonies" all of which would be seen as conflicting by some, possibly you.

This is the essence of the problem. Our lives are testimony-based. No question. Pragmatism. Yet, we still yearn for objective truth, for (switching to first person) evidence external to myself that my truths are objectively true, true for everyone, regardless of whether any human minds exist  to believe them. Unfortunately, we can never get outside our perceptions to see if they correspond to anything outside ourselves in the manner we think (and hope) they correspond. This is an impossibility, no matter the nature and strength of our convictions (e.g, the Spirit whispered and I know God exists). At best we can only believe, not know. I accept this, but struggle with it. If Pragmatism is ‘true,’ I see no basis for anyone to assert the truth of any proposition, religious or otherwise, without adding the disclaimer ‘true for me, but I might be wrong. There’s no way to tell either way, but it’s my truth and I’m sticking with it.’

As for why Orthodox Catholic Christianity, it has nothing to do with feeling God’s presence or feeling led by the Spirit. I didn’t even pray and seek God’s will for me when I was thinking about conversion. I don’t feel led by God. Trying and failing to feel the Spirit after years of applying Moroni 10:3-5 and Alma 32 burnt to a crisp all faith that God communicates to us through our feelings. It’s still a nuked wasteland, 25 years after I woke up one morning a committed atheist and 10 years after my Roman Catholic baptism, by way of a few preliminary years of Zen Buddhism, which I found to be really cool and fascinating. 

So why did I return to faith in Jesus? The longing for God and evidence of his existence never really left me. The hedonistic nihilism of my post-LDS life was not satisfying. C.S. Lewis brought me back to a modicum of faith in the the existence of God through reading and thinking about his reasoned arguments in Mere Christianity and Miracles. Jesus always was compelling, more so than the Buddha, so it was easy to take the next step in that direction, once I concluded there might be something to this God thing after all. Reading Catholic philosophy strengthened my conviction there might really be something to this God thing. 

Why Catholic? Discovering similarities between Buddhist and Catholic mysticism was step one. I’d also sometimes heard in Gospel Doctrine or read in BYU publications about ancient Christian writers who believed some of what Mormons believe, guys like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyon. I delved into the ancient pre-Nicene literature to learn for myself what the earliest post-NT Christians believed and how they worshipped.  Everywhere I looked, I saw Catholics and Gnostics. I didn’t see any Mormons or Protestants, no reference at all to what Mormons believe about God’s nature and the temple. It doesn’t exist in the patristic literature LDS apologists like to quote. If there ever were people who believed what Mormons believe about the temple, they were gone before the end of the 1st century, before Clement and the Didache, when John the Beloved was still alive. That was step two. 

Then I read Margaret Barker’s ‘Great High Priest’ at the recommendation of an online LDS poster, who claimed to be friends of Nibley. I didn’t see Mormonism there, either. After finishing the book, all I saw was evidence linking Solomon’s Temple  to the earliest Catholic liturgies. Step three.

Finally, there’s the New Testament itself. Some passages sound Catholic or Protestant, others LDS. It can all be interpreted in various ways, it’s ambiguous evidence, except for the fact that (as I discovered to my surprise) it was put together by the pre-schism Catholic Church. It was and is a Catholic collection.

That’s it in a nutshell. I guess all of that that can be interpreted by some as being led by God, but who knows. There’s no way to know. All of it was my own interpretations of evidence. For me, it was all about reducing cognitive dissonance in the context of giving Jesus a try again. All I know is my readings and interpretations of the most ancient Christian writings (in English translation) took me right to the nearest catholic parish to sign up for RCIA. I moved East a few years later after discovering the beauty of the Byzantine liturgy. I never looked back. If I want to stick with Jesus, it’s the Catholic Tradition or bust.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Spammer

[10THAmendment]

You don't have to look any further than Brigham Young to have a sure knowledge that prophets are infallible. So infallible that I often question whether they are prophets at all. I am even at the point where I am leaning towards Brigham Young being a false prophet that led people away from God. He taught that God wasn't actually God but a man in the Garden of Eden and that black people were cursed by God (or..uh..Adam?) and denied them the priesthood based on their skin color and "wide noses". Things like that are simply impossible to justify away as insignificant personal opinion of an imperfect man. I don't believe God would allow His chosen prophet to make such massive errors. When it leads people away from Him that's where imperfection ends and divine intervention begins.

 

While Brigham Young is an extreme case, it does call into question the validity of modern day prophets. If God allowed past prophets to deny His children of blessings and to preach false doctrine why wouldn't He allow it today?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Rich Hansen said:

I think this is the crux of the matter.  If fallibility is recognized not only in theory, but in practice as well, faith diminishes. 

Members crave infallibility in their leaders.  Life is simpler that way.  It is like a child trusting in a parent.  Likewise, prophets and apostles foster the idea of infallibility.   Management becomes easier.

If specific mistakes by prophets and apostles are openly acknowledged,  it all falls apart.   

Were I in the shoes of upper church leadership, I would probably operate the same way.  I don't see anything to be gained by becoming democratic.

I think you've got this backwards. Recognizing fallibility isn't the problem. Expecting infallibility is the problem. Faith only diminishes if the expectations are set so high that they are impossible to realize. I believe this is a problem of church culture that has been developed over the years based on "follow the prophet" teachings. It doesn't mean much to say that we believe a prophet is fallible if we back that up with "but we should obey and support regardless". When people like Oaks teach that it is improper to criticize anything a leader does or says, whether right or wrong, it creates the expectation that prophets and apostles are above criticism and therefore, by default should be treated as if they are right.

I agree that life would be simpler if leaders were infallible, but it's simply not a realistic expectation. Pretending it is creates a huge problem and things fall apart. If trust and sustaining of prophets is absolute it will be very easy for that trust to be broken and very hard for it to be regained. IMO it is wrong to focus at all on building faith in a prophet/apostles. Faith should be placed in Jesus only and then we can trust leaders insofar as they earn and deserve that trust. But we shouldn't follow them blindly.

Treating leaders as perfect, even when we know they are not is a horrible and harmful plan. Yes, it may help the organization and leaders maintain control. IF control was the primary goal then it might work, but that's not the plan. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is Satan's plan.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There are plenty of non-members who believe that we believe #7, however.

And I have heard of members who have left the church because they believed it, and also believed they couldn't achieve it.

I would acknowledge that there is sometimes a perfection culture in the church. It is often born out of a focus on worthiness and a checklist philosophy for achieving righteousness. But perfectionism is antithetical to acceptance of the atonement. I think the church does a good job of focusing on the atonement even if the balance between grace and works sometimes becomes a bit lopsided.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

You don't have to look any further than Brigham Young to have a sure knowledge that prophets are infallible. So infallible that I often question whether they are prophets at all. I am even at the point where I am leaning towards Brigham Young being a false prophet that led people away from God. He taught that God wasn't actually God but a man in the Garden of Eden and that black people were cursed by God (or..uh..Adam?) and denied them the priesthood based on their skin color and "wide noses". Things like that are simply impossible to justify away as insignificant personal opinion of an imperfect man. I don't believe God would allow His chosen prophet to make such massive errors. When it leads people away from Him that's where imperfection ends and divine intervention begins.

 

While Brigham Young is an extreme case, it does call into question the validity of modern day prophets. If God allowed past prophets to deny His children of blessings and to preach false doctrine why wouldn't He allow it today?

Look up the word "infallible"

[Kevin Christensen]

A few things missing in these discussions:

D&C 1 making a blunt statement on "mine authority and the authority of my servants" especially declaring that "inasmuch as they have erred it shall be made manifest"

Also Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Notice that infallibility is NOT one of the tests, and that if it were, it would require an infallible person to infallibly declare the results of such a test (notice that various people claimed that Jesus was fallible, morally, doctrinally, prophetically), and that the Bible does not offer any examples of perfect prophets, other than Jesus.   Because D&C 1 emphatically states that we should expect imperfection (as does the Book of Mormon in the preface and content, and the notable example of Mormon's letter to Pahoran in which the leader turns out to be dead wrong, fussing about imperfection in others is misdirected) the presence of these concerns is rooted in something other than Mormon doctrine.  It is rather, an aspect of human behavior and development.  

I've elsewhere made the case that the issue is not LDS doctrine, but rather, human development, as noted by the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  It's a strategy for dealing with complexity, to assume, demand, expect that the leaders know it all.

Also, regarding GAs in conference talking about mistakes,  in 1978 Bruce McConkie famously told people to forget everything he or others had said about the priesthood restriction.

J. Reuben Clark, a famously conservative person gave a conference talk on the topic.

https://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Clark, J. Reuben/ReubenJR_WhenAreWritingsAndSermonsOfChurchLeadersScripture.html

Spencer Kimball, as I recall, also denounced the Adam God business.

So there are examples here and there.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Why Catholic? Discovering similarities between Buddhist and Catholic mysticism was step one. 

I find it interesting that it is mysticism that attracted you to Catholicism, because there is a drastic difference between the road of the mystic and the "yearning" search for objective truth and evidence external to yourself, that you describe in your personal quest for truth/enlightenment.  What is it about mysticism that draws you to the Catholic church?  Because to me, mysticism aligns perfectly with the Latter-day Saint concept of introspective communion with the Holy Spirit - of learning the voice of the Spirit and walking therein.

For example, the early mystics like Saint Teresa of Avila often spoke of the indwelling of the Spirit and encouraged us practice the prayer of active, interior recollection in order to obtain a knowledge of this indwelling - she encouraged us to "test" the Word (Alma 32).  

Quote

“I only beg you to test it [by interior recollection], even at the cost of a little trouble. I assure you…you will find Him within you” (see The Way of Perfection, Chapters 28-29).

Mysticism is all about becoming aware of God's presence within your soul to help us on our spiritual journey.  This is what I have learned from studying different Benedictine monks like Dim Hubert van Zellar:

Quote

“The discovery of God present in the soul is one of the most momentous in the soul’s spiritual career…Once the soul has grasped the significance of this doctrine, the whole horizon changes; the implications are limitless…More and more, the soul of prayer should come to realize that it is the Holy Spirit who is acting….” (edited from pages 119-121)

This is NOT an external search for objective truth, it requires us to close our eyes to the external world and pay attention to the still small voice within.  It is all about where our attention is placed.  In mysticism, the attention is always turned inward.  That is where God dwells.  In the heart. In the present. No where else.  No other time. 

Quote

“be attentive to the presence of the Holy Spirit within your soul.” - Tom Mulcahy, M.A.

Mysticism aligns perfectly with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  The journey you describe is not mysticism, but something else.  Something external.

 

[Spammer]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

“See what the Spirit says" is the ultimate and final test.

Yes, but, in principle, whether it’s really the Spirit doing the saying, whether it really is God you’re letting when you let go, is unknowable. 

[10THAmendment]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Look up the word "infallible"

Lol I had just woken up.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Lol I had just woken up.

😀

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Yes, but, in principle, whether it’s really the Spirit doing the saying, whether it really is God you’re letting when you let go, is unknowable. 

And therefore irrelevant. It's the best we get.

So Alma 32 reigns supreme, and so does pragmatism.

There is no "more" to seek. Looking for it is the illusion

There is no knowable Santa out there, just the prompting to give.  But where does THAT come from?

There IS prompting, and you have felt it 

We call that seeking "God"

God is the urge to become.

There is nothing we can know outside of our perceptions.

Apply that to God too.

Edited October 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would acknowledge that there is sometimes a perfection culture in the church. It is often born out of a focus on worthiness and a checklist philosophy for achieving righteousness. But perfectionism is antithetical to acceptance of the atonement. I think the church does a good job of focusing on the atonement even if the balance between grace and works sometimes becomes a bit lopsided.

Agreed. 

On the one hand Christ's admonition "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." in Matthew 5:48 would seem to support the idea of perfectionism for all of Christendom, and not just the Latter-day Saints.  However, the koine Greek word τέλειοι as used in this verse doesn't necessarily mean perfect in the sense we seem to take it.  It could mean that, but that word could also be rendered as "complete" or "full-grown".  And then we have 3 Nephi 12:48, where Christ modifies this to "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."  This suggests strongly that one should strive to be better, but actual perfection will only be achieved later, after one's resurrection, because he didn't compare himself to the Father until after his resurrection -- even though he was arguably perfect, being sinless.

I like Elder Holland's talk on the subject, "Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually" in the October 2017 General Conference.  Among other things, he said: "Our only hope for true perfection is in receiving it as a gift from heaven—we can’t “earn” it. Thus, the grace of Christ offers us not only salvation from sorrow and sin and death but also salvation from our own persistent self-criticism."

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would acknowledge that there is sometimes a perfection culture in the church. It is often born out of a focus on worthiness and a checklist philosophy for achieving righteousness.

My dear wife I think suffers from this tendency. I have described her in this forum as my Molly Mormon wife. Sometimes she is obviously bothered or in distress. Inevitably, when I ask what's wrong she will start rambling off a laundry list of faults or things she hasn't or doesn't do "like person x." She has a tendency to get down on herself, and get depressed as a result. It doesn't seem to help to tell her she is the kindest and most thoughtful person I know, because she is stuck on those perceived faults. Telling her how pure her intent is doesn't help either. The only saving grace (pun intended) out of this trap is to rely on the Savior's atonement, and know that He looks on the purity and desire of our hearts - and her heart definitely has the desire to be perfect! My point is that the perfection culture and checklist tendencies are harmful to her. I have no doubt based on the high degree of reliance on anti-depressants in Utah that it is also harmful to others. It doesn't help that the high altitude of the intermountain region also seems to definitely play a role in causing depression.  

Quote

But perfectionism is antithetical to acceptance of the atonement. I think the church does a good job of focusing on the atonement even if the balance between grace and works sometimes becomes a bit lopsided.

The evangelist Christians do have this much right - that the desire to do good works is born out a changed heart. Their fault I think is relying on a stilted interpretation of Paul resulting on a complete focus on grace as the reason or mode of our salvation without recognizing good works as the evidence of our faith. In essence good works are our part of the covenant and His part is to offer us grace to cover our shortcomings, whatever they may be. And now that I've said that it strikes me perhaps as being a new paradigm to view salvation through - a covenant paradigm. 

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I find it interesting that it is mysticism that attracted you to Catholicism, because there is a drastic difference between the road of the mystic and the "yearning" search for objective truth and evidence external to yourself, that you describe in your personal quest for truth/enlightenment.  What is it about mysticism that draws you to the Catholic church?  Because to me, mysticism aligns perfectly with the Latter-day Saint concept of introspective communion with the Holy Spirit - of learning the voice of the Spirit and walking therein.

For example, the early mystics like Saint Teresa of Avila often spoke of the indwelling of the Spirit and encouraged us practice the prayer of active, interior recollection in order to obtain a knowledge of this indwelling - she encouraged us to "test" the Word (Alma 32).  

Mysticism is all about becoming aware of God's presence within your soul to help us on our spiritual journey.  This is what I have learned from studying different Benedictine monks like Dim Hubert van Zellar:

This is NOT an external search for objective truth, it requires us to close our eyes to the external world and pay attention to the still small voice within.  It is all about where our attention is placed.  In mysticism, the attention is always turned inward.  That is where God dwells.  In the heart. In the present. No where else.  No other time. 

Mysticism aligns perfectly with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  The journey you describe is not mysticism, but something else.  Something external.

 

A renewed search for the indwelling God (mysticism) came first.  My interest in Zen took me back to that place, where I gave trying to make 'contact' with 'something' another try.  Discovering Catholic mysticism dovetailed with my interest in Jesus; I was originally spiritually formed within Mormonism, after all.  Jesus suited me better than the Buddha; sitting there and chanting with other Buddhists was just too weird.  

However, Buddhist mysticism led me to explore Catholicism, the oldest extant form of Christian mysticism, once I stumbled onto St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.  The similarities with Buddhism piqued my interest and took me into my readings in Catholic philosophy, the patristic literature and the formation of the New Testament canon. The external evidences, as I described in my earlier post, convinced me there never was a Great Apostasy and provided the ground for where I would look, within a Christian setting, for the indwelling presence of God.  I'm still looking.  For now, ten years after my Catholic baptism, I still only have the objective, external evidence, even though the rekindled desire for finding the God within came first.  It's sometimes an uncomfortable juxtaposition.  I realize my interpretations of the evidence are just that - interpretations.  St. John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul describes my inner spiritual life - a vast, spiritual dryness, a desert. I still have doubts about God’s existence. That’s why I selected Thomas, the Doubter, as my baptismal name, and frequently pray the centurion’s prayer ‘Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.’ However, as long as I continue to have interest in Jesus and find value in participating in the ancient Christian liturgy, I'll stick with the Catholic tradition.  The external evidence is conclusive.  It's either the Catholic tradition or I'm done with Jesus.  There is no other option that aligns with the evidence.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Spammer

[Spammer]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And therefore irrelevant. It's the best we get.

So Alma 32 reigns supreme, and so does pragmatism.

There is no "more" to seek. Looking for it is the illusion

There is no knowable Santa out there, just the prompting to give.  But where does THAT come from?

There IS prompting, and you have felt it 

We call that seeking "God"

God is the urge to become.

There is nothing we can know outside of our perceptions.

Apply that to God too.

I agree. There’s no other way to see it. We can persuade others to give our way a try, tell them it’s the best way and here’s why. They might even taste and find it sweet, too. That doesn’t mean it really is the best, though. Whether our subjective best aligns with the objective best can never be known,  without access to the latter, which is something we can never have, if we can know nothing outside of our perceptions. 

I accept all of this, but I don’t like it. Have you read Augustine’s Confessions or Ambrose’s Proslogion? They also struggled with this.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Yes, but, in principle, whether it’s really the Spirit doing the saying, whether it really is God you’re letting when you let go, is unknowable. 

Nothing about Christianity is knowable from an objective sense. There is a lot of evidence for Christ - much more than for the vast majority of people from his day, and yet the vast majority of the world is still not Christian. Why? Because He is not objectively knowable. He is not here and present doing miracles in front of everybody. I can go see Jerusalem, but so can Muslims...who reject Yeshua as their Savior. 

Over the course of my life, I definitely recognize the stirrings of the Spirit. I have felt when it is grieved and left my soul alone. I have felt the presence of God fill my body. For me there just is no denying YHWH. I know that I am (usually) on the right path. There is no objective way to show you my evidence, and hence you are Orthodox. I'm sure many Christians feel I am totally deceived. Perhaps they too have felt the promptings of the Spirit during their lives, and so feel they are on the right path, and I'm sure in many ways they are. For me, there is no life in Yeshua without feeling the Spirit and stirring of the soul, so I have empathy for you. I want to give others what I know and have experienced, but there is no way for me to do it. I can write about it and perhaps create a desire for others to experience it, but the rest is up to them. That is simply the way Christianity works.

[Spammer]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Nothing about Christianity is knowable from an objective sense. There is a lot of evidence for Christ - much more than for the vast majority of people from his day, and yet the vast majority of the world is still not Christian. Why? Because He is not objectively knowable. He is not here and present doing miracles in front of everybody. I can go see Jerusalem, but so can Muslims...who reject Yeshua as their Savior. 

Over the course of my life, I definitely recognize the stirrings of the Spirit. I have felt when it is grieved and left my soul alone. I have felt the presence of God fill my body. For me there just is no denying YHWH. I know that I am (usually) on the right path. There is no objective way to show you my evidence, and hence you are Orthodox. I'm sure many Christians feel I am totally deceived. Perhaps they too have felt the promptings of the Spirit during their lives, and so feel they are on the right path, and I'm sure in many ways they are. For me, there is no life in Yeshua without feeling the Spirit and stirring of the soul, so I have empathy for you. I want to give others what I know and have experienced, but there is no way for me to do it. I can write about it and perhaps create a desire for others to experience it, but the rest is up to them. That is simply the way Christianity works.

I agree with all of this. Sharing what works for us, what stirs our souls, is all we have. There is no objective proof, not even for my claim that Mormonism can’t be found in the patristic literature. That evidence might be outside of us, but our interpretations of it aren’t. I believe there is an objective ground of truth, but that belief is subjectively grounded.

Oh well.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, Spammer said:

I agree with all of this. Sharing what works for us, what stirs our souls, is all we have. There is no objective proof, not even for my claim that Mormonism can’t be found in the patristic literature. That evidence might be outside of us, but our interpretations of it aren’t. I believe there is an objective ground of truth, but that belief is subjectively grounded.

Oh well.

Having gone completely inactive in the Church really for two separate occasions I certainly identify with your yearning to feel the Truth - to know that you are on the right path. Thank you for sharing your journey. It helps me to appreciate your desire to find truth. That is always the first step in the Christian life. I will probably share more, but will have to do so later. 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Spammer said:

A renewed search for the indwelling God (mysticism) came first.  My interest in Zen took me back to that place, where I gave trying to make 'contact' with 'something' another try.  Discovering Catholic mysticism dovetailed with my interest in Jesus; I was originally spiritually formed within Mormonism, after all.  Jesus suited me better than the Buddha; sitting there and chanting with other Buddhists was just too weird.  

However, Buddhist mysticism led me to explore Catholicism, the oldest extant form of Christian mysticism, once I stumbled onto St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.  The similarities with Buddhism piqued my interest and took me into my readings in Catholic philosophy, the patristic literature and the formation of the New Testament canon. The external evidences, as I described in my earlier post, convinced me there never was a Great Apostasy and provided the ground for where I would look, within a Christian setting, for the indwelling presence of God.  I'm still looking.  For now, ten years after my Catholic baptism, I still only have the objective, external evidence, even though the rekindled desire for finding the God within came first.  It's sometimes an uncomfortable juxtaposition.  I realize my interpretations of the evidence are just that - interpretations.  St. John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul describes my inner spiritual life - a vast, spiritual dryness, a desert. I still have doubts about God’s existence. That’s why I selected Thomas, the Doubter, as my baptismal name, and frequently pray the centurion’s prayer ‘Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.’ However, as long as I continue to have interest in Jesus and find value in participating in the ancient Christian liturgy, I'll stick with the Catholic tradition.  The external evidence is conclusive.  It's either the Catholic tradition or I'm done with Jesus.  There is no other option that aligns with the evidence.

 

I wish you well on your journey!  I think Catholicism is a deep and fertile well to nourish profound spiritual enlightenment.  Don't lose hope or faith in your quest to discover the indwelling God.  He is there. It doesn't matter which religious foundation you come from.  He is there.  Communion with the indwelling Spirit transcends religion - Christian or not.  You didn't need to leave the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to discover the Spirit within.  You didn't find Him in Mormonism, and it doesn't look like you have found him in Catholicism.  Not surprisingly.  The correct path is to discover Him internally, so that he can guide you externally - not the other way around.   The restored gospel is in harmony with the principles taught in Catholic mysticism.  We would all do better to stop looking for God outside of ourselves.    

The external evidence may be conclusive to you, but it is the internal evidence that really matters.  Don't give up on the principles taught by the early mystics.  You are on the right path.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Spammer said:

I agree. There’s no other way to see it. We can persuade others to give our way a try, tell them it’s the best way and here’s why. They might even taste and find it sweet, too. That doesn’t mean it really is the best, though. Whether our subjective best aligns with the objective best can never be known,  without access to the latter, which is something we can never have, if we can know nothing outside of our perceptions. 

I accept all of this, but I don’t like it. Have you read Augustine’s Confessions or Ambrose’s Proslogion? They also struggled with this.

That which is spiritually sweet is good.  Naturally, that which is good cannot be bad.  So, don't discard that which is sweet, fearing that it is not the "best".  Enjoy the sweetness of it.  Embrace it. Savor it.  It is a gift.  The trick is to never be confident that what you have is the "best".  The "best" is the holistic picture - something that we will never perceive of in mortality.  Enjoy it, but be ever searching for something more. If we discard or hide that which we have been given, we will not be given more (parable of the talents).