Jump to content

Reconciling bruce r. McConkie


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

This may be a dopey comparison, but it made me think of my garden. I have had gardens most of my life. The soil is horrible where I live now. So I had a vegetable garden area dug up and replaced with good soil. The plants look beautiful and green this year. But none are setting fruit! It occured to me that there were no bee enticing flowers in the area. So yesterday, I went to Lowes and followed bees around. I bought the flowers who were attracting the most bees and planted them in between the recalcitrant vegetables.  I guess I have to see if it works to continue this analogy. LOL

A number of vegetables aren't pollinated by the honeybee.  For tomatoes, for example, you want bumble bees.

 

Edited by ksfisher
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Juliann has rightly called me out.  I sincerely apologize.  I respect your faith and have come here to test my own issues and appreciate each of your perspectives and the time you have given to entertain my various issues.

You've been extremely patient with me and I sincerely appreciate it, perhaps I just need to take a break and catch my breath or find a splash pad to cool off.

I just learned yesterday that 3 close relatives have recently left the church.  Of course no one in my family dared share this information with me on fear that it would only embolden me and my issues that I have only in very simple terms even disclosed with these same family members.

I honestly want the church to be everything it claims to be.  I have given countless hours of service and based on that alone should probably be were many of you are instead of where I now find myself.  I would never have ever believed I'd become a non-believer and yet here I am.

Again I sincerely apologize for anything I might had posted the gave offence, it was not my intent.  Cheers and G'day, I'm going to take a break

 

see below

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Juliann has rightly called me out.  I sincerely apologize.  I respect your faith and have come here to test my own issues and appreciate each of your perspectives and the time you have given to entertain my various issues.

You've been extremely patient with me and I sincerely appreciate it, perhaps I just need to take a break and catch my breath or find a splash pad to cool off.

I just learned yesterday that 3 close relatives have recently left the church.  Of course no one in my family dared share this information with me on fear that it would only embolden me and my issues that I have only in very simple terms even disclosed with these same family members.

I honestly want the church to be everything it claims to be.  I have given countless hours of service and based on that alone should probably be were many of you are instead of where I now find myself.  I would never have ever believed I'd become a non-believer and yet here I am.

Again I sincerely apologize for anything I might had posted the gave offence, it was not my intent.  Cheers and G'day, I'm going to take a break

 

In the spirit of dialing it back, how else would we interpret the world around us if not for mental states and sensory perceptions at all levels of consciousness? In some sense and at some level, your experience with Elders Dunn and President Kimball resonated with you in a way that you attributed to the Spirit. If your attribution changed on the basis of your “head” and “heart” dynamics (both representing two most general kinds mental states and sensory perceptions, with more subsets and in greater synthesis than you can possibly be aware of -- hence we refer to "spiritual"), what else have you to go by? Alma 32 covers all this.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The spirit or at least what I have interpreted as the "Spirit®" has born witness to me countless times in my life.  I have generally interpreted those spiritual witnesses as confirmations of the truth.   I no longer feel that having a spiritual witness from this "Spirit®" is a reliable witness of anything.

My bosom would burn with the spirit when listening to the lies of Paul H Dunn, my bosom would burn when Spencer Kimball taught that Lamanites stretched from Tierra del Fuego to the artic and the islands of the Pacific.  Pacific islanders are no more Lamanites than I am, a white man of English decent.  In fact the spirit just bore witness to me that what I've just posted here is true.  Weird huh.

No… not weird at all. Perhaps it is just a misinterpretation of what you are feeling these situations where you are “feeling the spirit” seem to be not so. 
 

Do you have those same feelings when I tell you the America declaration of independence was signed in 1776? Or that Jeffery Epstein ran a child sex island? Or that pres Biden is the president?

I don’t know that the spirit’s purpose is to bear testimony of historical events or facts. I think rather you are having “that makes sense and it is exciting!” Moments.

Ive never felt the spirit in situations like that. I felt excited and enlightened when I read Cleon Skousen’s Building Blocks of the Universe… but do I believe that that was the spirit? Absolutely not, but it makes sense to me.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the spirit of dialing it back, how else would we interpret the world around us if not for mental states and sensory perceptions at all levels of consciousness? In some sense and at some level, your experience with Elders Dunn and President Kimball resonated with you in a way that you attributed to the Spirit. If your attribution changed on the basis of your “head” and “heart” dynamics (both representing two most general kinds mental states and sensory perceptions, with more subsets and in greater synthesis than you can possibly be aware of -- hence we refer to "spiritual"), what else have you to go by? Alma 32 covers all this.

:clapping:🤓

No one can see it more clearly than this.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I see a lot of anxiety on display that is symptomatic of a more fundamental problem, of what actually should be called CHURCH DOCTRINE, and the insecurity that comes from ignoring the proper definition, addressed here, in 3 Nephi 11:

This statement is clear, blunt, and, I think, demonstrably accurate.

Nope.  That is Bill Reel's argument.  

Church doctrine is want the Q12 says it is. Of course there is likely a church website entry that contradicts me.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The spirit or at least what I have interpreted as the "Spirit®" has born witness to me countless times in my life.  I have generally interpreted those spiritual witnesses as confirmations of the truth.   I no longer feel that having a spiritual witness from this "Spirit®" is a reliable witness of anything.

My bosom would burn with the spirit when listening to the lies of Paul H Dunn, my bosom would burn when Spencer Kimball taught that Lamanites stretched from Tierra del Fuego to the artic and the islands of the Pacific.  Pacific islanders are no more Lamanites than I am, a white man of English decent.  In fact the spirit just bore witness to me that what I've just posted here is true.  Weird huh.

That may be because the "burning in the bosom" has been overused and overemphasized as the spirit.
Joseph Smith taught that:

  • "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; 

If Joseph is right the confirmation of the spirit is to the mind, not the warm fuzzy feelings.

 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Fether said:

No… not weird at all. Perhaps it is just a misinterpretation of what you are feeling these situations where you are “feeling the spirit” seem to be not so. 

Here's an excerpt of something I wrote for a friend a few years back:

Quote

I concede that "confirmation bias" can and does exist, and that it can have an undue influence on a person's outlook.  This is why I appreciate the approach promulgated in the Restored Gospel.  Continued study, prayer, and appropriate conduct (in other words, both "talking the talk" and "walking the walk" vis–à–vis the teachings of the Gospel) result in a continuous testing of what we believe and why, and also results in a sharpened, clarified, lean 'n mean testimony.  My testimony today of the Restored Gospel is much different than it was 10-20 years ago because I have studied a lot during the intervening years.  So I think a confirmation bias, which may be extant early on in a person's journey of faith, does not hold up long as compared to continued, rigorous study.

I {also} concede that people can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

 

I do not think we can create discrete categories of evidence relative to the intellect and the Spirit.  This article puts it rather well: 

It is a fundamental misunderstanding or misstatement to say that the LDS revelatory experience is exclusively or primarily “emotional.” The united witness of mind and heart is key in LDS doctrine. Even the body is involved in many instances, hence the use of language exactly like “burning in the bosom.” The LDS concept of human experience is not one where we are carved up into separate, rigid compartments labeled emotional, intellectual, and physical. The LDS approach to human experience is holistic and involves all of our faculties operating simultaneously and inextricably. According to LDS scripture, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” D&C 88:15 We are greater than the mere sum of our inner and outer parts. Ordinarily, it’s not possible, nor is it desirable, to reject and shut down any one of our faculties. All of them combine to provide useful and valid ways of coming to know ourselves, the world, and God. All are involved in true spiritual experience.

 

Accordingly, an LDS “spiritual” experience has intellectual content as well as emotional elements of peace or joy. In the early days of the Church, Oliver Cowdery received the following revelation through Joseph Smith:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.

Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? (D&C 6:22–23).

Notice the information is spoken to the “mind,” and the feeling of peace accompanies the intellectual gift. Further, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling” alone but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

 

This matches the revelatory pattern later explained to Cowdery.

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong… (D&C 9:7–9).

Again, the united witness of intellect and heart are essential. If either does not agree, then revelation has not yet confirmed the matter under consideration. Anyone who relies exclusively on any one faculty – either feeling or reasoning or physical sensation – does not properly understand the LDS approach to spiritual witnesses.

 

To be sure, many Church members will talk about how they “felt” when they prayed or had other experiences with God. However, it is to fundamentally misunderstand these experiences to assume (as critics often do) that talk of “feeling” means simply—or only, or primarily— experiencing an “emotion.” What's lacking from these descriptions is vocabulary. The problem with them is more semantic than it is substantial. The LDS member is stymied, in a sense, because there is no good, available word for what happens during a spiritual experience. These experiences are ineffable. By definition, they defy description. Since few of us have the poetic and metaphorical powers of prophets like Isaiah and John, we are left to try our best to convey what we've experienced in words laden with secular connotations which critics can misinterpret if they so choose.

 

LDS scholar, Hugh Nibley, hazarded a guess at what this process of willful misinterpretation might look like:

 

He cannot conceive how anyone could possibly acquire knowledge by any method other than his. He cannot believe that any man has experienced anything which he has not experienced. . . . ‘I have never seen a vision,' says the [skeptic], ‘therefore, Joseph Smith never had one. I have seen dreams [or had emotionally moving experiences], therefore, I will allow him that.'”[1]

Early Christians experience similar feelings to a "burning in the bosom". Justin Martyr wrote in his book Dialogue with Trypho, of his conversion that he was a philosopher until he met an old man who introduced him to the Hebrew Prophets when “a flame enkindled his heart” and he found “this philosophy (Christianity) alone to be sure and profitable.” [2]

 

The Shepard of Hermas, which was once considered scripture, reads “There are two angels with a man-one of righteousness, and the other of iniquity...The angel of righteousness is gentle and modest, meek and peaceful. When he ascends into your heart, he speaks to you of righteousness, purity, chastity, contentment, and every other righteous deed and glorious virtue. When all of these things come into your heart, know that the angel of righteousness is with you” [3]

___

 

[1]  Hugh W. Nibley, The World and the Prophets, 3rd edition, (Vol. 3 of Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum, and Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 31. ISBN 087579078X.

[2] Dialogue with Trypho 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:198

[3] Shepard of Hermas, Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:24

Finally, other examples are other Mormon-affiliated groups – the Community of Christ and FLDS church. Both of these churches encourage their members to follow Moroni’s promise and find out for themselves the truth of their church. And the spirit confirms to them that their church is the one true church. It seem to me that praying for truth doesn’t seem to be too uncommon. When people recognize that there is a higher being(s) they ask that higher being(s) for guidance to, and confirmation of, the truth.

 

This article by Latter-day Saint Jeff Lindsay also has some good points on this issue.  A few highlights (emphases added):
Some people are puzzled by our use of the term "testimony," but I feel we use it as it is used in the Bible. For example, Revelation 19:10 says that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" - suggesting to me that revelation - the spirit of prophecy - is needed to have a sure witness of Christ (and that those with a sure witness of Christ can have spiritual gifts such as prophecy). Rev. 19:10, by the way, echoes 1 Cor. 12:3: "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." No one can truly testify of Christ - or truly "bear testimony" of Him, unless that testimony is based on personal revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost. Other related references to the use of the word "testimony" can be found in 1 Cor. 1:6; 1 Cor. 2:1; 2 Tim. 1:8; Rev. 6:9; and Rev. 12:11.
 
Faith based on the physical senses and human logic alone is much more fallible than "the sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19) wherein God reveals pure truth to a soul - an experience which is difficult to describe but is real and available to those earnestly seeking to commune with God in prayer.
 
The concept of humans receiving a witness of the truth through the power of God - rather than human logic alone - is entirely Biblical. See Matthew 16:15-19; John 14:26 and 15:26, and others. I think that the best discourse on this topic is found in chapters 1 and 2 of First Corinthians. Paul refers to the testimony of Christ (1 Cor. 1:6) and warns against the divisions among the believers that have occurred because of false doctrines and the learning of men. Whereas the Greeks love human wisdom and logic and sophistry, Paul stresses that all this is foolishness before God (1 Cor. 1:17-21).
...
LDS testimonies are based upon the idea that God can reveal truth to us and give us an understanding that the Gospel is true, that Jesus is the Christ, and that He leads His Church through modern prophets and apostles, even when we don't yet have all the understanding needed to answer the many objections that critics throw our way. Once God has revealed it to our heart and mind, human logic cannot easily overthrow that witness. This concept, contrary to what our critics asset, is entirely Biblical. Paul, for example, spoke of this in 1 Corinthians 12:3, saying "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." We cannot truly know that Jesus is the Lord unless it is revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. Revelation is the basis of testimony - and our critics wrest the scriptures when they revile against the thought.
 
So how do Mormons obtain this revelation and develop their faith about the truthfulness of the Gospel? Prayer is essential, and pondering and thinking about the word of God (which includes the Book of Mormon). Prayer, study, and pondering opens up the channels of revelation. Further, we must experiment with the word and put the Gospel into practice. For example, John 7:17 tells us that we can know of the truthfulness of Christ's word by doing it - by doing the will of God. In John 8:31, the Savior teaches that we will come to know the truth if we continue in His word, becoming true disciples. Both of these passages agree with Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon (the "seed" chapter you read): our knowledge of the truth grows as we put it into practice, just as scientific knowledge grows as we apply and experiment with valid scientific hypotheses. Alma 32 talks about much more than an emotional experience - which is not the basis of testimony for faithful Latter-day Saints (though it is for some who have not diligently sought to know and nurture the word). Emotional experiences can occur in any religion and are not a reasonable basis for faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Again I sincerely apologize for anything I might had posted the gave offence, it was not my intent.  Cheers and G'day, I'm going to take a 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

We can take a little well intended mockery. 

My problem with mockery is what it may do to those mocking. We need to be careful it doesn’t push us to dismissing more than we need to dismiss, that it doesn’t create in us an attitude that closes us down to new ways of thinking because we have lost the habit of respect. 
 

I think light hearted mocking is good at pushing buttons that need to be pushed to help us consider new ideas, new perspectives, but it can easily become too much and start shutting down introspection and exploration because another and even oneself feels ashamed for considering something another has mocked or worse ourselves. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

This may be a dopey comparison, but it made me think of my garden

That is a great analogy…hopefully it works for you in real life as well.
 

I can see if neighbours aren’t using the same principle, that it may be harder for your flowers to attract…which could be used as an analogy that we need faithful communities where neighbours all planting flowers makes each yard more productive in ways one person cultivating can’t manage on their own. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My personal experience has been that when one starts their spiritual journey working tirelessly on truth claim #1, a relationship with Deity is built and a reservoir of spiritual experiences of being led and directed by Deity is established which quells doubt and fear and engenders spiritual insight and confidence. 

I feel like I can agree with this. Except that I find that, as I focus on my personal relationship with Deity, I find Him telling me things that contradict what the Church officially teaches. The main source of confusion, I find, is trying to answer the question of whether or not I should stay in relationship to the Church. The Church is where I learned about God and built that relationship. I participated in ordinances and (mostly) believe in the covenants that go with those ordinances. If the Church becomes more of a hindrance in developing my relationship to God and a hindrance to keeping my covenants, at what point should I change (maybe even sever) my relationship to the Church in order to pursue my relationship with God?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If Joseph is right the confirmation of the spirit is to the mind, not the warm fuzzy feelings.

The times I am certain the Spirit was directing me (because I learned stuff that highly unlikely I figured out on my own) it wasn’t particularly emotional. It was more like my mind was wiped clean of the usual chatter and one idea was just ‘there’ suddenly.  A couple of times I heard it ‘voiced’.  And that idea started a domino like train of thought that led to me doing something dramatically different than what I had been expecting. 
 

I believe the Spirit can communicate through emotion as well as thought, but that is harder to isolate what parts are the Spirit and what part is ourselves contributing.  I tend to see emotional spiritual communications (not shallow warm fuzzies but something more lasting and deep) as meant more for comfort and the Spirit telling us we are cared for by God and we should care about others than for sharing factual information…but that may be how the Spirit has chosen to work with me because of my strengths and weaknesses. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The first step was to learn there IS a God who communicates, then you need to learn the language before you get to the "facts" of how God works.

Then you look back and see that you "mistranslated" part of the message- but the core of the message- that there IS a God who created all things- for example- was correct and "true"

This…knowledge that God is there and then confidence he cares…that makes taking risks to learn possible, meaningful for me.  I may need to go back to square one at times, but having that foundation means it is still progress. 
 

But I also know it may be very difficult for some who lack confidence in God for reasonable reasons to get even to square one (abuse has taught them to mistrust rather than trust so taking the first steps that are needed…they may not understand how to or even that they can and should; biology interferes with their ability to trust external input and internal experience as they know their body is giving them false ideas all the time).

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

The times I am certain the Spirit was directing me (because I learned stuff that highly unlikely I figured out on my own) it wasn’t particularly emotional. It was more like my mind was wiped clean of the usual chatter and one idea was just ‘there’ suddenly.  And that idea started a domino like train of thought that led to me doing something dramatically different than what I had been expecting. 

That's basically how Joseph described revelation.

slide_26.jpg

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Church doctrine is want the Q12 says it is.

This. (Though I think Bob meant "what" not "want".)

 

I believe we are a church who follows the prophet, not doctrine, of course it could be argued that the prophet defines current doctrine.

McConkie was, in my opinion, the last high level GA theologian who was willing to explicate doctrine.

 

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

McConkie was, in my opinion, the last high level GA theologian who would was willing to explicate doctrine.

I wonder how much of the current pendulum swing the other way is a reaction to that.

Link to comment

As I have followed this thread, I see a lot of different ideas and concepts and directions. After all of this, I feel like Ben Spackman captures the problem the best. Speaking of the problem of slavery in the Bible (because it is such a morally egregious example -- I think we can include other controversies including those that come from Elder McKonkie's teachings), Spackman writes

Quote

The problem, then, neatly encapsulated in Philemon, is that scripture fails to live up to a standard we see as ethically and morally cut-and-dried, and presumably eternal. Scripture simply doesn’t reflect the eternal ideal, as we understand. How do we account for this? What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman? -- https://benspackman.com/2019/11/01/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

So what is our model of scripture and revelation and prophets -- that can incorporate authority and fallibility and the importance (if not necessity) of following prophets even when they are wrong and whether or not it is appropriate to contradict prophets and so on.

Spackman seems to like an "accommodationism" model, where God will not (or cannot) override deep seated beliefs that the prophet or His people hold. In general, I like the idea, but I also find myself asking -- if God could tolerate/accommodate slavery for most of human/Biblical history, then He should be able to tolerate/accommodate same sex marriage or women holding the priesthood (assuming those are "accommodated" policies and not more true than our current heteronormative, patriarchal teachings).

Then there is Leo Winegar's (of Uplift) "restorative light" model (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oPeKD7Zwym_VeAIfM566K7HYqvqbAaxIGqMZxQ9QIC0/edit that makes sense to me. Except that past prophets (including our case study here, Elder McKonkie) gave little indication that they were having trouble seeing truth and right. I think I would be more comfortable with this model if prophets and apostles were better at saying, "It's a bit fuzzy so I'm not sure what I'm seeing, but I think this is right." As Elder McKonkie demonstrates "Forget everything..." speech, they can sometimes be good at recognizing after the fact when they could not see clearly, but that doesn't seem to help when you are looking forward into the darkness around current issues (LGBT, women and priesthood and patriarchy, etc.)

I recall seeing Given's "viceroy" model (in The Crucible of Doubt) where prophets speak as authoritative viceroys and God "makes what they say right". Not very comfortable with this model. It seems like, under this kind of model, there is no sense of eternal truth or morality because God can make anything right and moral and true.

I don't really know the answer to the questions I see being raised in this discussion. It seems to me that a lot of the difficulty is that we really don't understand our own model of prophets and revelation and scripture well enough to account for errancy and fallibility.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I wonder how much of the current pendulum swing the other way is a reaction to that.

I suspect a lot. President McKay reacted this way to the initial publication of Mormon Doctrine.

Quote

McKay's first step was to obtain a copy of the book and study it. One of his secretaries noted, "He went through the whole thing. He had paper clips [on the pages where he had a question], and there were hundreds of them there." Then he summoned two senior apostles, Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. "I asked them if they would together go over Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine and make a list of the corrections that should be made preparatory to his sending out an addendum to all members of the church who have purchased his book." . . .

Peterson and Romney took ten months to critique the book and make their report to the First Presidency. Romney submitted a lengthy letter on January 7, 1960, detailing what he felt were the most egregious errors in the book and noting: "Its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author's attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the church on 'Mormon Doctrine.' " On the same day, Petersen gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections that "affected most of the 776 pages of the book.

The following day, McKay and his counselors made their decision. The book "must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements. . . . We do not want him to publish another edition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency." . . . McKay's message seems to have been unambiguous.

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I suspect a lot. President McKay reacted this way to the initial publication of Mormon Doctrine.

 

Yet, despite this, the book was immensely popular amongst members of the church.  It seems to have filled an empty space in many libraries.  We had a copy.  My grandparents had a copy. 

I wonder if we just like/d being told what we believe or do we just want to be assured that others believe the same as us?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That may be because the "burning in the bosom" has been overused and overemphasized as the spirit.
Joseph Smith taught that:

  • "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; 

If Joseph is right the confirmation of the spirit is to the mind, not the warm fuzzy feelings.

 

It's both mind and heart, left and right brain, reason and feeling.  Briefly, see D&C 8:2

Quote

Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

At length, there is this:

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

I agree that D&C 9 has been overused, but there is far more that we could and should use.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yet, despite this, the book was immensely popular amongst members of the church

Which indicates their concern about “the propriety of the author's attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the church on 'Mormon Doctrine’” was valid, imo.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The Spirit teaches us for advancement FROM WHERE WE WERE TO BEYOND WHERE WE ARE NOW- INTO THE FUTURE..  The "facts" we believe we are learning are not "facts"- they are steps up the ladder of understanding.

They are what we NEED to learn or go through in order to get to the next level

This reminds me of one of the better lines from the season finale of Loki that I watched just last night:

     SYLVIE (protagonist): Then why are we here?

     HE WHO REMAINS (antagonist): Oh, come on. You know you can't get to the end until you've been changed by the journey. This stuff, it needs to happen. To get us all in the right mindset to finish the quest.


We need to go through mortality to grow and progress to where God wants us to be - to start changing into what we can possibly become - and there just isn't any other way to do it.

And the Spirit is the key to all of that. Absolutely nothing else trumps the Spirit.

No matter what anyone else says, or does, or thinks, if you are following the Spirit you will be okay in the end.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

HE WHO REMAINS (antagonist): Oh, come on. You know you can't get to the end until you've been changed by the journey. This stuff, it needs to happen. To get us all in the right mindset to finish the quest.


We need to go through mortality to grow and progress to where God wants us to be - to start changing into what we can possibly become - and there just isn't any other way to do it.

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt 24: 13)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I feel like I can agree with this. Except that I find that, as I focus on my personal relationship with Deity, I find Him telling me things that contradict what the Church officially teaches. The main source of confusion, I find, is trying to answer the question of whether or not I should stay in relationship to the Church. The Church is where I learned about God and built that relationship. I participated in ordinances and (mostly) believe in the covenants that go with those ordinances. If the Church becomes more of a hindrance in developing my relationship to God and a hindrance to keeping my covenants, at what point should I change (maybe even sever) my relationship to the Church in order to pursue my relationship with God?

Lots of insightful comment recently in this thread.  I appreciate your question, but really can’t relate to its premise, that Deity has revealed to you things contrary to “what the Church officially teaches.”

My communion with Deity has never included a Q & A on Church teachings.  Instead it springs from an abiding prayer in my heart around three asks:  1. for promptings on how I can better live the two great commandments; 2. for insights and promptings to help me understand “what lack I yet;” and 3. that as I strive to gather Divine insight and wisdom the promise that i will be given “in the very moment” what He would have me share with others will be fulfilled.

My experiences with such communion is consistent with the recent comments regarding spiritual experiences flowing through both the heart and the mind.  

Edited by let’s roll
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...