The LDS and Revival

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How would a “regular” Sunday worship service differ from a “led revival”?

I can see how a spontaneous event (where “two or three are gathered together in my name”) can be co-opted by the powers that be (e.g., chaplains of student organizations) to evolve into a “led revival,” with understandably less than the Lord’s intended results (I'm assuming this is why you are not a fan of them -- it really doesn't matter at that stage whether it is a church or some other non-church organization doing the leading). That said, I see no real harm with what was done at Auburn as you describe it.

I have not seen this sort of thing occur at our “regular” Sunday worship services (which are led by local priesthood authority) or at BYU.

I am not sure if you are asking me about a regular LDS Sunday worship service or a typical (if there is such a thing) Evangelical Sunday worship service? The former may be built around order and "presiding," while the latter may be built around flexibility and greater "levelness" (I can't quickly think of a better word) between pastor and congregation than in an LDS environment where "presiding" is even mentioned at the start of the service and thus seems to be very important. Having said that I have never seen an example of where a presiding male did something "presiding-like" in an LDS Sunday morning service. I have seen it done in an Antiochan Orthodox service.

I would suggest that a truly spontaneous event may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit, and only then co-opted in the sense of human intervention in a hundred different ways. That might vary from providing food and other such resources or if in a structure that thought it necessary, authority for baptisms, and the like - the latter would probably mostly occur in certain denominational settings where baptism implies membership in a particular church, which goes against (in my mind) the idea of "spontaneous."

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

This passage came to my mind

Jeremiah 20:9

If I say, I will not make mention of him, or speak any more in his name, then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones. I am weary with holding it in. I can’t.

 

If there's fire in your bones, it's going to make a difference in your demeanor as it comes out.

Are you sure you are not Pentecostal? Jeremiah was the first Pentecostal (after the Holy Spirit, of course)! 😃

Edited September 25, 2023 by Navidad

[Leaf474]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Are you sure you are not Pentecostal? Jeremiah was the first Pentecostal (after the Holy Spirit, of course)! 😃

I hear what you're saying, and I did grow up pentecostal. I don't know if I still am or not 😀

 

God's spirit is like the wind; we can feel its effect, but we can't tell where it came from or where it's going. The resulting effects are sometimes what we wouldn't expect -

Judges 14:19

The Spirit of the Lord came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them. He took their plunder, then gave the changes of clothing to those who declared the riddle. His anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house.

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I hear what you're saying, and I did grow up pentecostal. I don't know if I still am or not 😀

 

God's spirit is like the wind; we can feel its effect, but we can't tell where it came from or where it's going. The resulting effects are sometimes what we wouldn't expect -

Judges 14:19

The Spirit of the Lord came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them. He took their plunder, then gave the changes of clothing to those who declared the riddle. His anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house.

Just curious. Which version are  you using in your textual quotes? Thanks.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

what passes for praise music in most churches these days is (in my opinion) largely a bunch of garbage.

I concur. It’s poor quality folk rock. 
 

Now gospel music, on the other hand…

 

[Leaf474]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just curious. Which version are  you using in your textual quotes? Thanks.

That's the World English Bible. I like it because it was always intended to be a public domain Bible for use on the internet. It's based on the American Standard Version of 1901 with updated language. It does have a bit of a Hebrew Roots flavor, but I just change those parts 😃

 

(I have mixed feelings about the King James. As I understand it, it's not public domain in the UK.)

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=WEB

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

That's the World English Bible. I like it because it was always intended to be a public domain Bible for use on the internet. It's based on the American Standard Version of 1901 with updated language. It does have a bit of a Hebrew Roots flavor, but I just change those parts 😃

 

(I have mixed feelings about the King James. As I understand it, it's not public domain in the UK.)

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=WEB

KJV is what LDS use; others of course are used as well, including recent translations for and by LDS scholars.

But if it is not KJV, you will be more open to criticism an your discussions here- your opponent can simply claim that your translation is not translated "correctly".

Just some advice...

[Leaf474]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

KJV is what LDS use; others of course are used as well, including recent translations for and by LDS scholars.

Translations by LDS scholars? Which ones are those?

 

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But if it is not KJV, you will be more open to criticism an your discussions here- your opponent can simply claim that your translation is not translated "correctly".

My impression is that the Saints use the KJV, but that it is for the most part considered not translated correctly. Just the parts in the Joseph Smith Translation are reliable - and even then are open to later revelation, I assume.

 

Is that impression incorrect? I'm interested 🙂

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just some advice...

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. And if you'd like to talk more in-depth, we could even move to a different thread or something 🙂

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure if you are asking me about a regular LDS Sunday worship service or a typical (if there is such a thing) Evangelical Sunday worship service? The former may be built around order and "presiding," while the latter may be built around flexibility and greater "levelness" (I can't quickly think of a better word) between pastor and congregation than in an LDS environment where "presiding" is even mentioned at the start of the service and thus seems to be very important. Having said that I have never seen an example of where a presiding male did something "presiding-like" in an LDS Sunday morning service. I have seen it done in an Antiochan Orthodox service.

I would suggest that a truly spontaneous event may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit, and only then co-opted in the sense of human intervention in a hundred different ways. That might vary from providing food and other such resources or if in a structure that thought it necessary, authority for baptisms, and the like - the latter would probably mostly occur in certain denominational settings where baptism implies membership in a particular church, which goes against (in my mind) the idea of "spontaneous."

I was referring to the difference between worship services and "led revivals" in general, i.e., for any of the denominations or traditions that use them. Your reply suggests to me that "presiding" (as you see it) and "levelness" (as you describe it), pertain to either, and so both are functionally the same with regard to revival:  the worship service and the "led revival", like the "truly spontaneous [individual or group] event," may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit. The "truly spontaneous event" can be prompted by any influence (Holy Spirit, inducing individual or group psychological factors, etc.) upon or exertion arising from any human agent's mental state, no matter whether or how or by whom or by what it is subsequently co-opted.

Are you suggesting that conversely, not all worship services, led revivals and "truly spontaneous events" may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit? Or that only the "truly spontaneous events" are guaranteed to become co-opted by the Holy Spirit (and how would anyone know this is the case, in this instance, for Auburn)?

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Translations by LDS scholars? Which ones are those?

 

My impression is that the Saints use the KJV, but that it is for the most part considered not translated correctly. Just the parts in the Joseph Smith Translation are reliable - and even then are open to later revelation, I assume.

 

Is that impression incorrect? I'm interested 🙂

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. And if you'd like to talk more in-depth, we could even move to a different thread or something 🙂

I don't care much for "translations", words are always ambiguous in any "translation".  We cannot duplicate cultures.

I read the scrip, then go to the Lord while pondering it, for MY meaning unless it comes from the Latin Vulgate, which I CAN read, but even then, I pick personal revelation over all else.

The KJV is seen as mostly "correct"

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was referring to the difference between worship services and "led revivals" in general, i.e., for any of the denominations or traditions that use them. Your reply suggests to me that "presiding" (as you see it) and "levelness" (as you describe it), pertain to either, and so both are functionally the same with regard to revival:  the worship service and the "led revival", like the "truly spontaneous [individual or group] event," may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit. The "truly spontaneous event" can be prompted by any influence (Holy Spirit, inducing individual or group psychological factors, etc.) upon or exertion arising from any human agent's mental state, no matter whether or how or by whom or by what it is subsequently co-opted.

Are you suggesting that conversely, not all worship services, led revivals and "truly spontaneous events" may be co-opted by the Holy Spirit? Or that only the "truly spontaneous events" are guaranteed to become co-opted by the Holy Spirit (and how would anyone know this is the case, in this instance, for Auburn)?

 

I am suggesting that in hierarchical and ordered structures it would be more likely for human interference to limit the Spirit (a term that Evangelicals use). If a presiding officer was not happy with what was happening in a LDS sacrament service he could and might bring it to a conclusion or limit the speech of someone who was seen as causing a "disruption." Where the hierarchy is "leveler" it would be less likely or easy for a pastor, for example to shut down the service of someone seen by him or her as disruptive for fear of "limiting" the Spirit's influence. Of course, on the other hand, leaders can also structure the service to promote an emotional response on the part of the people that could mimic the work of the Spirit. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can co-opt anything it wants- anywhere it wants. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I am assuming that an event, gathering, or situation that is truly co-opted by the Spirit is indeed co-opted by the Spirit whether formal, individual, or a small informal gathering. An Event that is co-opted by human design is not likely to be visited by the Holy Spirit, even though there may be Spirit-like manifestations (speaking in tongues, emotional outpourings, physical manifestations, etc.). How would anyone know the difference? Of course on the other hand, the manifestation of the Spirit can also be quiet and felt by only one or several, or many people in quiet silence. For example, I can't tell you how many folks in our ward have told my wife and I that they have felt the Spirit in a talk that one of us gave in Sacrament service, or in a song in which I was a part. That always confused me because of my also having been repeatedly told that I can't have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non-member. I guess to reconcile that I have had to come to the conclusion that the Spirit must be able to manifest itself in the non-LDS Christian as much as in an LDS Christian. I for one, have never seen a difference.

Certainly not all manifestations of the Spirit are big events. I do believe however that big Spirit-led events begin with isolated ministries of the Spirit in one or several people, and can on rare occasions grow exponentially from there. I personally don't have much experience with such exponential growth in meetings (sorry Mark), so I can't speak personally to their dynamics. The true manifestation of the Holy Spirit and any resulting revival or renewal is a fascinating topic for discussion. I don't deny any believer the gifts or Gift of the Holy Spirit. That is why I have rather stunned to have those I consider to be mature LDS Christians just matter-of-fact come up to me with an almost casual certainty that neither I or my wife can have the Gift of the Spirit, not because of anything in us, but because their doctrine teaches them that, so they truth (as in the verb) it, regardless of what they might see in my us. Take care. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am suggesting that in hierarchical and ordered structures it would be more likely for human interference to limit the Spirit (a term that Evangelicals use). If a presiding officer was not happy with what was happening in a LDS sacrament service he could and might bring it to a conclusion or limit the speech of someone who was seen as causing a "disruption." Where the hierarchy is "leveler" it would be less likely or easy for a pastor, for example to shut down the service of someone seen by him or her as disruptive for fear of "limiting" the Spirit's influence. Of course, on the other hand, leaders can also structure the service to promote an emotional response on the part of the people that could mimic the work of the Spirit. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can co-opt anything it wants- anywhere it wants. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I am assuming that an event, gathering, or situation that is truly co-opted by the Spirit is indeed co-opted by the Spirit whether formal, individual, or a small informal gathering. An Event that is co-opted by human design is not likely to be visited by the Holy Spirit, even though there may be Spirit-like manifestations (speaking in tongues, emotional outpourings, physical manifestations, etc.). How would anyone know the difference? Of course on the other hand, the manifestation of the Spirit can also be quiet and felt by only one or several, or many people in quiet silence. For example, I can't tell you how many folks in our ward have told my wife and I that they have felt the Spirit in a talk that one of us gave in Sacrament service, or in a song in which I was a part. That always confused me because of my also having been repeatedly told that I can't have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non-member. I guess to reconcile that I have had to come to the conclusion that the Spirit must be able to manifest itself in the non-LDS Christian as much as in an LDS Christian. I for one, have never seen a difference.

Certainly not all manifestations of the Spirit are big events. I do believe however that big Spirit-led events begin with isolated ministries of the Spirit in one or several people, and can on rare occasions grow exponentially from there. I personally don't have much experience with such exponential growth in meetings (sorry Mark), so I can't speak personally to their dynamics. The true manifestation of the Holy Spirit and any resulting revival or renewal is a fascinating topic for discussion. I don't deny any believer the gifts or Gift of the Holy Spirit. That is why I have rather stunned to have those I consider to be mature LDS Christians just matter-of-fact come up to me with an almost casual certainty that neither I or my wife can have the Gift of the Spirit, not because of anything in us, but because their doctrine teaches them that, so they truth (as in the verb) it, regardless of what they might see in my us. Take care. 

I cannot even imagine where to start on this one, so I simply won't.

 

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't care much for "translations", words are always ambiguous in any "translation".  We cannot duplicate cultures.

I read the scrip, then go to the Lord while pondering it, for MY meaning...

That's cool. On a practical level, though, your meaning has to conform to the meaning derived by the leaders in order for you to remain a "good" Saint, does it not?

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...unless it comes from the Latin Vulgate, which I CAN read, but even then, I pick personal revelation over all else.

Cool again. But why the Vulgate in particular, since it too is a translation? It's only real claim to fame is that it's basically endorsed by the Catholic Church... As I understand it.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The KJV is seen as mostly "correct"

Cool a third time  😀 I think the World English Bible will have the same meaning as the KJV in the vast majority of cases. It's mostly stylistic differences, imo. For example, ending a sentence with a contraction. I don't think the KJV even uses contractions?

 

Thanks for your input ❤️

[webbles]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

For example, I can't tell you how many folks in our ward have told my wife and I that they have felt the Spirit in a talk that one of us gave in Sacrament service, or in a song in which I was a part. That always confused me because of my also having been repeatedly told that I can't have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non-member. I guess to reconcile that I have had to come to the conclusion that the Spirit must be able to manifest itself in the non-LDS Christian as much as in an LDS Christian. I for one, have never seen a difference.

I feel you conflated two different things.  I can feel the spirit when a non-Christian (such as an atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Satan worshipper, etc) speaks or sings a song.  It doesn't matter whether the person who is speaking or singing has the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Edited September 26, 2023 by webbles

[Leaf474]

Bringing this around to the thread topic, the Protestant Reformation can be seen as a large-scale revival. A key piece was the invention of the printing press. This allowed copies of the Bible to be printed as opposed to handwritten, greatly increasing availability. Personal Bible study and interpretation became common.

 

The LDS movement is then a revivalist step beyond that, with more scriptures and Prophets, Seers, and Revelators to do the interpreting, as opposed to ecumenical councils and popes.

 

Comments?

[Leaf474]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am suggesting that in hierarchical and ordered structures it would be more likely for human interference to limit the Spirit (a term that Evangelicals use). If a presiding officer was not happy with what was happening in a LDS sacrament service he could and might bring it to a conclusion or limit the speech of someone who was seen as causing a "disruption." Where the hierarchy is "leveler" it would be less likely or easy for a pastor, for example to shut down the service of someone seen by him or her as disruptive for fear of "limiting" the Spirit's influence. Of course, on the other hand, leaders can also structure the service to promote an emotional response on the part of the people that could mimic the work of the Spirit. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can co-opt anything it wants- anywhere it wants. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I am assuming that an event, gathering, or situation that is truly co-opted by the Spirit is indeed co-opted by the Spirit whether formal, individual, or a small informal gathering. An Event that is co-opted by human design is not likely to be visited by the Holy Spirit, even though there may be Spirit-like manifestations (speaking in tongues, emotional outpourings, physical manifestations, etc.).

 

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

How would anyone know the difference?

You might have meant that rhetorically, but wouldn't that be where the gift of discernment comes in? Do the Saints have a different idea of what the gift of discernment is?

 

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course on the other hand, the manifestation of the Spirit can also be quiet and felt by only one or several, or many people in quiet silence. For example, I can't tell you how many folks in our ward have told my wife and I that they have felt the Spirit in a talk that one of us gave in Sacrament service, or in a song in which I was a part. That always confused me because of my also having been repeatedly told that I can't have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non-member. I guess to reconcile that I have had to come to the conclusion that the Spirit must be able to manifest itself in the non-LDS Christian as much as in an LDS Christian. I for one, have never seen a difference.

Certainly not all manifestations of the Spirit are big events. I do believe however that big Spirit-led events begin with isolated ministries of the Spirit in one or several people, and can on rare occasions grow exponentially from there. I personally don't have much experience with such exponential growth in meetings (sorry Mark), so I can't speak personally to their dynamics. The true manifestation of the Holy Spirit and any resulting revival or renewal is a fascinating topic for discussion. I don't deny any believer the gifts or Gift of the Holy Spirit. That is why I have rather stunned to have those I consider to be mature LDS Christians just matter-of-fact come up to me with an almost casual certainty that neither I or my wife can have the Gift of the Spirit, not because of anything in us, but because their doctrine teaches them that, so they truth (as in the verb) it, regardless of what they might see in my us. Take care. 

 

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, webbles said:

I feel you conflated two different things.  I can feel the spirit when a non-Christian (such as an atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Satan worshipper, etc) speaks or sings a song.  It doesn't matter whether the person who is speaking or singing has the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

OK. Fair enough. I just don't have anything in my theological briefcase that could allow for the sense or feeling of the spirit to occur if the Spirit is not present in the person speaking, singing, testifying, or in other cases vacuuming, raking leaves, etc. Acts of kindness are human works, unless they are done by someone indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then they many become indeed a work of the Spirit which can be felt by others.

Certainly an emotional or even rational response can occur, but not the real live Spirit if that same Spirit is not present in the person. Perhaps our difference in briefcases is that mine only has room for the indwelling of the Spirit and yours has room for the Spirit to come and go on a fairly routine or regular basis, dependent on something, I am not sure what.

I am simply using the term "briefcase" as a metaphor for the "baggage" (not as nice a term in colloquial use) that we each carry based on our learnings from our respective faiths. I think it helps us to understand, honor, and receive each other's beliefs (baggage or briefcases). I think that is a part of consensus building, which is more important to human dialogue and understanding than agreement building. I like the consensus that is often reached on this forum, even if I am most often in the minority of the outcome. Being part of a consensus frees me from either having to agree or stand alone.

I think, as Mark has pointed out, we have different meanings for the same word - like priesthood and authority for another two examples. We both use the same words with completely differing meaning. Or - even salvation. Or sanctification - Or exaltation (which I don't have at all in my briefcase). In my understanding, the Holy Spirit is only present in the individuals attending or participating in a Sacrament or Baptist Sunday morning service, not in the air above the folks, not in the room, or under the tree in the air or leaves.  Thanks for your response.

[Navidad]

38 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

You might have meant that rhetorically, but wouldn't that be where the gift of discernment comes in? Do the Saints have a different idea of what the gift of discernment is?

 

Well said. Good point. I do believe that discernment of the Spirit is a gift (of the Spirit). I hope one or more of our LDS friends will opine on your last question. It is a good one. I don't remember the gift of discernment having been discussed on this forum. Thanks.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well said. Good point. I do believe that discernment of the Spirit is a gift (of the Spirit). I hope one or more of our LDS friends will opine on your last question. It is a good one. I don't remember the gift of discernment having been discussed on this forum. Thanks.

Be ready for responses, it's been discussed outside the forum in church lessons aplenty. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of?lang=eng

Edited September 26, 2023 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Translations by LDS scholars? Which ones are those?

I meant sections or passages they may have published, not a complete volume

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited September 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Do the Saints have a different idea of what the gift of discernment is?

We do not use this term; please define.

You know by the spirit, period.

For me there is no confusion between "just me" and the spirit - it's the "still small voice" which would be, for me, like confusing my wife's voice with my daughter's voice.

Different modes of thinking- what does "discernment" add?

It's kind of creating another category of "revelation" that is unnecessary.  It's the spirit, period.

If you are confused, it's not the "spirit".  It shows it's own passport.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

OK. Fair enough. I just don't have anything in my theological briefcase that could allow for the sense or feeling of the spirit to occur if the Spirit is not present in the person speaking, singing, testifying, or in other cases vacuuming, raking leaves, etc.

But we don’t believe that lacking the Gift of the Holy Ghost means they never have the Holy Ghost with them.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We do not use this term; please define.

 

 

If you are referring to “gift of discernment”, we actually do.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2018/06/questions-and-answers/what-is-the-gift-of-discernment?lang=eng

I think we use “discernment” most with leaders.  And talk about the “mantle”.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of?lang=eng

I am guessing “gift of discernment” is becoming more commonly used because Elder Bednar refers to it.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/david-a-bednar/quick-observe/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/09/digital-only-young-adults/an-unexpected-prompting-taught-me-about-the-gift-of-discernment?lang=eng

https://askgramps.org/can-use-gift-discernment-help-others/

Edited September 26, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am suggesting that in hierarchical and ordered structures it would be more likely for human interference to limit the Spirit (a term that Evangelicals use). If a presiding officer was not happy with what was happening in a LDS sacrament service he could and might bring it to a conclusion or limit the speech of someone who was seen as causing a "disruption." Where the hierarchy is "leveler" it would be less likely or easy for a pastor, for example to shut down the service of someone seen by him or her as disruptive for fear of "limiting" the Spirit's influence. Of course, on the other hand, leaders can also structure the service to promote an emotional response on the part of the people that could mimic the work of the Spirit. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can co-opt anything it wants- anywhere it wants. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

I am assuming that an event, gathering, or situation that is truly co-opted by the Spirit is indeed co-opted by the Spirit whether formal, individual, or a small informal gathering. An Event that is co-opted by human design is not likely to be visited by the Holy Spirit, even though there may be Spirit-like manifestations (speaking in tongues, emotional outpourings, physical manifestations, etc.). How would anyone know the difference? Of course on the other hand, the manifestation of the Spirit can also be quiet and felt by only one or several, or many people in quiet silence. For example, I can't tell you how many folks in our ward have told my wife and I that they have felt the Spirit in a talk that one of us gave in Sacrament service, or in a song in which I was a part. That always confused me because of my also having been repeatedly told that I can't have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non-member. I guess to reconcile that I have had to come to the conclusion that the Spirit must be able to manifest itself in the non-LDS Christian as much as in an LDS Christian. I for one, have never seen a difference.

Certainly not all manifestations of the Spirit are big events. I do believe however that big Spirit-led events begin with isolated ministries of the Spirit in one or several people, and can on rare occasions grow exponentially from there. I personally don't have much experience with such exponential growth in meetings (sorry Mark), so I can't speak personally to their dynamics. The true manifestation of the Holy Spirit and any resulting revival or renewal is a fascinating topic for discussion. I don't deny any believer the gifts or Gift of the Holy Spirit. That is why I have rather stunned to have those I consider to be mature LDS Christians just matter-of-fact come up to me with an almost casual certainty that neither I or my wife can have the Gift of the Spirit, not because of anything in us, but because their doctrine teaches them that, so they truth (as in the verb) it, regardless of what they might see in my us. Take care. 

My observation is that human interference (you described this in the form of control and mimicry) to limit the Spirit is independent of group worship structure, and can ocurr individually as well. The Spirit reconciles hetero- and hierarchical, and ordered and flexible structures into spiritual or Spirit / spiritually-accommodating balance. Thus meetings can be conducted by the Spirit (Moroni 6:9).

Grace is co-opted fallen humanity or human weakness, which is where each of us stands as an accountable mortal. Sometimes this grace is referenced as a manifestation of the Spirit, depending on one's lexicon. This can be the operation or the light of Christ in the form of a talent or spiritual gift independent of baptism and confirmation, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and baptism by / with fire and the Holy Ghost. Some members you have spoken with may not understand or appreciate these distinctions. The light of Christ is in everyone and everything, and people irrespective of their faith tradition (or lack thereof) have the added blessing of enjoying it in the forms of talents and spiritual gifts. But that is not where the fulness of the gospel ends.

Edited September 26, 2023 by CV75