Spiritual but not Religious

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Would we say that , at least prior to 1830 , Joseph was spiritual but not religious ? 

I wonder if that designation would have meant anything to him?  It's a part of our culture but I don't know if would have been a part of his.  I think he would fall into the "religious" category today though.  He didn't have a home church but in every other way he seemed to fit that definition best.  He attended church and was actively looking for one to join.  As far as I understand them, spiritual people eschew church attendance and especially the joining of a church.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could it be that a religion moves beyond its founder? (rhetorical question. The answer is yes, they always do). Is that apostasy, development, something else?

With regard to your second question, I can say, unequivocally and enthusiastically, that the answer is, "Yes!"   (Once, I answered one of the sort of compound questions that law school is famous for, "Is it [A], [B], or [C]?" where [A], [B], and [C] not only are different, they are diametrically and irreconcilably opposed one to the other, "Yes," and my professor, who is one of the smartest people I ever will meet in my life, later went on to become a federal appellate judge, and now is the director of Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center, thought that answer was profound ... even though I, by contrast, am not smart!   I think that answer scored me permanent points with that professor, as, later on, when I took another class from him and I raised my hand one day, he said, "I'm sorry.  I know you did really well in my Con Law II class ..." (I hadn't ) "... but I've forgotten your name ..."  (Not only is he really smart, he's one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet [and those two things often don't go together]; he had enough class and grace to avoid saying, "Yes, the gentle idiot on the second row, what's your comment or question? ..." )

Edited December 29, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Would we say that , at least prior to 1830 , Joseph was spiritual but not religious ? 

Though this was written well after 1830, he writes of the earlier years, “I continued to pursue my common vocations in life until the twenty-first of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, all the time suffering severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious [but maybe spiritual? ], because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision. During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day…”

So, I guess by 1830 he was allowed to join the religious sect that was restored!

He also said (1838), "The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

"But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth."

He seems to have advanced to a balanced combination of spirituality and religion in a couple of ways, though he seems to have had this balance all along:

• Religion is testimony (a spiritual experience).
• Belief in spiritual experiences (the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, spiritual gifts, and the final triumph of truth) is spiritual.
• Belief in the restoration of Israel is religious.

 

[Kenngo1969]

As a general comment, and not in response to anything specific anyone has said here, whatever the utility of the 21st-century category "Spiritual, But Not Religious," I think there are more than a few potential pitfalls in attempting to superimpose a 21st-century category onto 19th-century conditions (and vice versa).  I just don't think that works well.

They understood nearly everything differently than we do (both for better and for worse), and we understand nearly everything differently than they did (both for better and for worse).  As the old saying goes, "That was then, this is now!"

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if that designation would have meant anything to him?  It's a part of our culture but I don't know if would have been a part of his.  I think he would fall into the "religious" category today though.  He didn't have a home church but in every other way he seemed to fit that definition best.  He attended church and was actively looking for one to join.  As far as I understand them, spiritual people eschew church attendance and especially the joining of a church.

I think some spiritual people avoid joining a church, especially the shade thrower type, but other spiritual just may not feel a need to find one rather than avoid it.

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think some spiritual people avoid joining a church, especially the shade thrower type, but other spiritual just may not feel a need to find one rather than avoid it.

Very true.  I was thinking more of the 'abstain' definition of the word eschew than the avoid one, but it's always good to be specific.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I think some spiritual people avoid joining a church, especially the shade thrower type, but other spiritual just may not feel a need to find one rather than avoid it.

There is some interesting data here about this group (which is further subdivided into different categories).

It appears that around half of spiritual but not religious (SBNR) people view religion as harmful.  Some of it may be in terms of perceived harms that come from meta-narratives and what they may view as "oppressive" definitions and outlines of "reality" and they seek autonomy from religious authority.   These might be those inclined to post-modern philosophies, for example, who eschew meta-narratives and adopt more relative views vs "absolute truth" preached from the pulpit.   They may not join a church because they tend to "shirk definition" and "boundaries", "for them, there is truth in all religions, and they refuse to believe any single religion has a monopoly on ultimate reality."

An interesting note from the article:

Quote

Spiritual leaders should not discount this group of the ‘spiritual but not religious.’ They are distinct among their irreligious peers in their spiritual curiosity and openness. The majority of those who have rejected religious faith do not describe themselves as spiritual (65%), similarly two-thirds of those with no faith at all do not identify as spiritual. So those who do—this group of the spiritual but not religious—display an uncommon inclination to think beyond the material and to experience the transcendent. Such a desire can open the door to deep, spiritual conversations and, in time, perhaps a willingness to hear about Christian spirituality. The bent of those conversations necessarily must be different though than with those who love Jesus but not the church. The wounds and suspicions toward church will come from different places—as will their understanding of spirituality. But both groups represent people outside of church who have an internal leaning toward the spiritual side of life.

 

 

  

Edited December 29, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

More interesting Pew Research data here.  I haven't explored it all yet, but thought I'd dump it here for the weekend if anyone wants to comment on it. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

More interesting Pew Research data here.  I haven't explored it all yet, but thought I'd dump it here for the weekend if anyone wants to comment on it. 

I find it interesting that our religion teaches that all the items in the "Essential elements of spirituality" section (last 2-3 paragraphs of the report) have a role or a place in our ultimate well-being, but also teaches when they do not have a place:

• “being connected with my true self” (we must "remember" and not be double-minded, but also not compass yourselves about with sparks [or] walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks which ye have kindled."
• “being open-minded” (James 1:5, but not James 1:8).
• “being connected with something bigger than myself” (John 17, but not secret combinations)
• “being connected with nature” (the sealing power over the elements and our temporal stewardship, but not the natural man as an enemy to God)
• “being connected with God” (John 17 but not with the gods we make ourselves).

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by CV75

[BlueDreams]

On 12/28/2023 at 12:07 PM, pogi said:

I read an article in Deseret News challenging the idea that people can be spiritual but not religious.

While acknowledging that it can be true for a minority, it suggests that it mostly a bogus assertion:

Did it ever dawn on the author that practicing spirituality "in their own way" might not include prayer??? 

 

It probably did, considering both the sources he references at the beginning of the article and his own acknowledgment about a dearth of data that was LDS specific. I read a good chunk of one of those sources before reading his article, so for me it read more like he was trying to apply generalized observations to a specific population. The biggest problem to me wasn't really the reduced amount of variables to define spirituality (though that is a problem) it was an assumed causal relationship where it's more correlative about reduced religiosity leading to reduced spiritual practice. I read a book about this a while ago and a more likely cause is the overarching social focus we have in a lot of modern cultures that doesn't give a lot of adequate space or value to spiritual practice. Some of that I would assume probably is tied to de-tethering it from spiritual traditions that are often tied to religion for western culture. 

On 12/28/2023 at 12:07 PM, pogi said:

My question to you all is how do you define spirituality?   What are the goals of spirituality?  What are the different methods and approaches to spirituality? 

Honestly, it confuses me a little bit. But from what I gather, it's a deeper sense of connection to something greater than yourself. Groups like AA allow for a very wide net for what that greater thing is...from the universe, humanity, nature, to a deity. I think my confusion isn't with the spiritual but not religious group but the not spiritual but religion subsection. But I think that just doesn't make sense for me personally, where I don't see the point in religion without a connection to something greater than myself....or how a connection to a faith community doesn't count as having a connection to something greater than oneself. But I digress. 

Goals may be to much of  a religion/western based construct. The goals can be as wide and varied as there are spiritual people. The ones I've heard of usually entails some form of communing, meditation/contemplation of greater things, connecting and expressing higher values such as kindness and care, etc. Methods likewise could probably vary. From those more into slow, contemplative forms of yoga, to sitting and experiencing a connection to nature, to prayer, to reading/listening to inspiring media, etc. 

On 12/28/2023 at 12:07 PM, pogi said:

Should people who claim that they are spiritual but not religious be judged on the limited scope of how often they pray? 

I honestly didn't get as much judgment vibes as you did from this. Skepticism, sure...but not necessarily heavy judgment. I do think there is valid critique in recognizing that without religious affiliation, there does seem to be fewer who ID as spiritual. That is concerning since spirituality is highly connected to greater life satisfaction and resilience. At the very least, that would indicate needing a means to help people recognize the need to find avenues for deeper connection and meaning - even if they aren't in a faith practice - and our current secular materialistic US culture sucks at that. I think he could have done a better job at explaining the problem....but I do think there is a problem 

On generally judging the trend of "spiritual, but not religious"...Ehh, depends. Kinda similar to how the value of religion varies on how it's actually practiced. Or how self-care has often been monetized. There are practices that do come off as kinda empty to me. But there's plenty who are genuine and earnest in their spiritual pursuits of communion and connecting in a way that yields greater kindness, patience, capacity, etc. As it says in our scripture, anything that yields good fruit is probs a good thing  (obviously summarizing). Since non-religious spirituality will vary from person to person, I would assume some are genuine, some are lost and trying to fill voids with incomplete tools, and some are just wanting a nicer way to say they don't like religion but still think about bigger concepts. 

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

“Not particularly religious? Interested? Spiritual? Are you testing me SATAN?”

 

[mfbukowski]

Jeepers creepers, what we need is church that stresses individual testimonies and flexible doctrine, and stresses a human-based set of flexible doctrines which lean toward the perfection of mankind in seeking to become as close to perfect as we can be, and in immortality and eternal life, while also accepting that traditional Christianity needs to be restored.

And nobody gets paid, and the pastors kind of rotate from being a pastor, then possibly a teacher of children etc. No professional Clergy.

Anybody know about a church like that?  🤔

Edited December 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Jeepers creepers, what we need is church that stresses individual testimonies and flexible doctrine, and stresses a human-based set of flexible doctrines which lean toward the perfection of mankind in seeking to become as close to perfect as we can be, and in immortality and eternal life, while also accepting that traditional Christianity needs to be restored.

And nobody gets paid, and the pastors kind of rotate from being a pastor, then possibly a teacher of children etc. No professional Clergy.

Anybody know about a church like that?  🤔

Yes! The Church of Spirituality of Spiritual People!

[Tacenda]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:40 PM, pogi said:

There is some interesting data here about this group (which is further subdivided into different categories).

It appears that around half of spiritual but not religious (SBNR) people view religion as harmful.  Some of it may be in terms of perceived harms that come from meta-narratives and what they may view as "oppressive" definitions and outlines of "reality" and they seek autonomy from religious authority.   These might be those inclined to post-modern philosophies, for example, who eschew meta-narratives and adopt more relative views vs "absolute truth" preached from the pulpit.   They may not join a church because they tend to "shirk definition" and "boundaries", "for them, there is truth in all religions, and they refuse to believe any single religion has a monopoly on ultimate reality."

An interesting note from the article:

 

 

  

Excellent post.

I want to go back for social but don't want to fall into the pattern of being told what to do, and having to follow a prophet, and having a middle man between me and God. I think religion is or can be very harmful when it does these things. Or even when religion tells what not to do. Then scrupulosity ocd people will have a terrible time especially. Kind of sucks out the individualism too, from many. I especially hate that the religions out there concentrate on telling the vulnerable, things that will shape their lives for the worse. Getting the youth for instance in a mindset of feeling shame, or even causing addiction. It's been proven that when someone is told not to think about or watch porn for instance that they will do exactly that and the mind will concentrate on it 100 percent more than if they hadn't been told that. Also, the scriptures that come from men, this has caused so much harm IMO, when saying things God wouldn't approve of. That's why spirituality that comes from within is so important, and having a religion take that away is why it's so harmful or having religion telling you how to have it, or how to honor it's authority, takes away from self authority. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Excellent post.

I want to go back for social but don't want to fall into the pattern of being told what to do, and having to follow a prophet, and having a middle man between me and God. I think religion is or can be very harmful when it does these things. Or even when religion tells what not to do. Then scrupulosity ocd people will have a terrible time especially. Kind of sucks out the individualism too, from many. I especially hate that the religions out there concentrate on telling the vulnerable things that will shape their lives for the worse. Getting the youth for instance in a mindset of feeling shame, or even causing addictions. It's been proven that when someone is told not to think about or watch porn for instances that they will do exactly that and the mind will concentrate of it 100 percent more than if they hadn't been told that. Also, the scriptures that come from men, this has caused so much harm IMO, when saying things God wouldn't approve of. That's why spirituality that comes from within is so important, and having a religion take that away is why it's so harmful or having religion telling you how to have it, or how to honor their authority, takes away their self authority. 

Can you clarify, it’s been proven that when someone is told not to watch porn that they then watch porn and it will be 100 times worse?  That seems like a bit of a crazy claim because it would apply to every single person who has ever been told not to watch porn.

It wouldn’t just apply to porn either. It would apply to everything that someone has ever been told not to do. That just doesn’t make sense.  Being told not to do something doesn’t make you do it.

Do you have access to the study? I bet it would make more sense if we could look at the study.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

Can you clarify, it’s been proven that when someone is told not to watch porn that they then watch porn and it will be 100 times worse?  That seems like a bit of a crazy claim because it would apply to every single person who has ever been told not to watch porn.

It wouldn’t just apply to porn either. It would apply to everything that someone has ever been told not to do. That just doesn’t make sense.  Being told not to do something doesn’t make you do it.

Do you have access to the study? I bet it would make more sense if we could look at the study.

It could have been this exact article recently: https://elevatecounselingaz.com/dont-think-of-a-pink-elephant/

 

[smac97]

On 12/29/2023 at 11:48 AM, blackstrap said:

Would we say that , at least prior to 1830 , Joseph was spiritual but not religious ? 

I don't think so.  A few thoughts:

1. "Spiritual But Not Religious" ("SBNR") is, per Wikipedia, "a life stance of spirituality that does not regard organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth."  As I see it, SBNR is a reaction to organized religion, essentially a rejection of it.

2. "Organized religion" ("OR") is, per Wikipedia, " religion in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established," and that its "essential elements" are "'worship and sacrifice, procedures for working on the dispositions of the deity [i.e.] theology, and ceremony and ecclesiastical organization.'"  Community.  Shared doctrines/beliefs/values.  Governance.

3. In the First Vision, Joseph was commanded to "join none" of the ORs of his day, so he didn't.  In contrast, SBNR folks in our day are choosing to set aside or avoid OR.

4. Per FAIR (here, here, here, here), Joseph apparently attended some Methodist and Presbyterian meetings with family during the 1820-1830 period, but never joined any of them.

5. It seems that Joseph never needed to "pivot" from SBNR to (or back to) OR.  He spent 1820-1830 preparing himself for the establishment - the re-establishment - of the Church of Jesus Christ.  In hindsight, this was always his trajectory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It could have been this exact article recently: https://elevatecounselingaz.com/dont-think-of-a-pink-elephant/

 

I think the pink elephant phenomenon is widely understood.  I remember learning about it at a young women's activity in the 90s.  It's good stuff.  But it's not teaching that controlling thoughts is impossible or that people should not be told not to control their thoughts.  Neither does it teach that being unable to stop thinking about something leads to doing that thing.

You stated "It's been proven that when someone is told not to...watch porn for instance that they will do exactly that and the mind will concentrate on it 100 percent more than if they hadn't been told that."

I'm not seeing a correlation between being told not to do something harmful and it leading to that person being compelled to do that harmful thing that in that article.  The article appears to be on how to deal with intrusive thoughts. 

Did I miss something in there?

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the pink elephant phenomenon is widely understood.  I remember learning about it at a young women's activity in the 90s.  It's good stuff.  But it's not teaching that controlling thoughts is impossible or that people should not be told not to control their thoughts.  Neither does it teach that being unable to stop thinking about something leads to doing that thing.

You stated "It's been proven that when someone is told not to...watch porn for instance that they will do exactly that and the mind will concentrate on it 100 percent more than if they hadn't been told that."

I'm not seeing a correlation between being told not to do something harmful and it leading to that person being compelled to do that harmful thing that in that article.  The article appears to be on how to deal with intrusive thoughts. 

Did I miss something in there?

I guess I shouldn't have used "porn" as a for instance. But have read many statements that they hadn't even thought of porn until their bishop interview brought it up. So I made a correlation to that. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I shouldn't have used "porn" as a for instance. But have read many statements that they hadn't even thought of porn until their bishop interview brought it up. So I made a correlation to that. 

That makes sense.  Thanks for explaining.

[Stargazer]

Given that there's a scriptural definition for "religion," which states that in its purity religion is doing charitable works for those in need, to claim to be spiritual without being religious is to claim that one stands there feeling self-satisfied, while others in need around you whom you can help get nothing from you.

Yeah, no. You can be as spiritual as you like, and like Paul said, without charity you are nothing.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Given that there's a scriptural definition for "religion," which states that in its purity religion is doing charitable works for those in need, to claim to be spiritual without being religious is to claim that one stands there feeling self-satisfied, while others in need around you whom you can help get nothing from you.

Yeah, no. You can be as spiritual as you like, and like Paul said, without charity you are nothing.

They are talking about organized religious institutions when speaking of not being "religious".   

"Pure religion", according to this definition of religion, needs no institutional religion. 

[Stargazer]

Just now, pogi said:

They are talking about organized religious institutions when speaking of not being "religious".   

Yes, I know, but I like to point out the obvious verbal contradiction in terms. Yes, I know, I am a pedant.

But at the same time, a lot of this being "spiritual" seems to mean a kind of useless, airy, "the mountains and trees are my church" kind of spiritual. And the claim seems to serve as an excuse for just going about their own business without concern for what truly matters. Like those "religious" orders that withdraw from the world in order to pray, ponder, sing, and contemplate God every livelong day. 

Just now, pogi said:

"Pure religion", according to this definition of religion, needs no institutional religion. 

Yes, absolutely. And there are persons who act according to that definition who do a lot of good in the world outside of the remit of a church institution. And seemingly ironically they are obeying one of God's "religious" commandments, perhaps one they are unaware of:

DC 58:27 - "Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;"

But of course that isn't sufficient for salvation. 

[pogi]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:49 PM, BlueDreams said:

It probably did, considering both the sources he references at the beginning of the article and his own acknowledgment about a dearth of data that was LDS specific. I read a good chunk of one of those sources before reading his article, so for me it read more like he was trying to apply generalized observations to a specific population. The biggest problem to me wasn't really the reduced amount of variables to define spirituality (though that is a problem) it was an assumed causal relationship where it's more correlative about reduced religiosity leading to reduced spiritual practice. I read a book about this a while ago and a more likely cause is the overarching social focus we have in a lot of modern cultures that doesn't give a lot of adequate space or value to spiritual practice. Some of that I would assume probably is tied to de-tethering it from spiritual traditions that are often tied to religion for western culture. 

Honestly, it confuses me a little bit. But from what I gather, it's a deeper sense of connection to something greater than yourself. Groups like AA allow for a very wide net for what that greater thing is...from the universe, humanity, nature, to a deity. I think my confusion isn't with the spiritual but not religious group but the not spiritual but religion subsection. But I think that just doesn't make sense for me personally, where I don't see the point in religion without a connection to something greater than myself....or how a connection to a faith community doesn't count as having a connection to something greater than oneself. But I digress. 

Goals may be to much of  a religion/western based construct. The goals can be as wide and varied as there are spiritual people. The ones I've heard of usually entails some form of communing, meditation/contemplation of greater things, connecting and expressing higher values such as kindness and care, etc. Methods likewise could probably vary. From those more into slow, contemplative forms of yoga, to sitting and experiencing a connection to nature, to prayer, to reading/listening to inspiring media, etc. 

I honestly didn't get as much judgment vibes as you did from this. Skepticism, sure...but not necessarily heavy judgment. I do think there is valid critique in recognizing that without religious affiliation, there does seem to be fewer who ID as spiritual. That is concerning since spirituality is highly connected to greater life satisfaction and resilience. At the very least, that would indicate needing a means to help people recognize the need to find avenues for deeper connection and meaning - even if they aren't in a faith practice - and our current secular materialistic US culture sucks at that. I think he could have done a better job at explaining the problem....but I do think there is a problem 

On generally judging the trend of "spiritual, but not religious"...Ehh, depends. Kinda similar to how the value of religion varies on how it's actually practiced. Or how self-care has often been monetized. There are practices that do come off as kinda empty to me. But there's plenty who are genuine and earnest in their spiritual pursuits of communion and connecting in a way that yields greater kindness, patience, capacity, etc. As it says in our scripture, anything that yields good fruit is probs a good thing  (obviously summarizing). Since non-religious spirituality will vary from person to person, I would assume some are genuine, some are lost and trying to fill voids with incomplete tools, and some are just wanting a nicer way to say they don't like religion but still think about bigger concepts. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for sharing.  I definitely got a different vibe.   I think the problem you note in your second to last paragraph is a valid one, and one that didn't seem to be addressed at all in the article at all.   The main problem he defines is that we shouldn't generally take "spiritual but not religious" people seriously.   As it states:

Quote

If we are to take these statistical findings seriously, the point is to not overstate the spiritual-but-not-religious pattern.  While yes, people can be spiritual and maintain a personal relationship with God in the absence of organized religion, that isn’t usually what happens in practice. 

Quote

However trendy the “spiritual but not religious” mantra continues to be in certain contexts, it doesn’t appear to bear out empirically. 

That seems to be the main thrust of his article.   As if to say, "so the next time you hear "spiritual but not religious", generally feel free to role your eyes, with an understanding from this article that it is not likely true." 

Interestingly, of those who claim to be religious, only a little more than half claim to be spiritual (29% religious and spiritual - 22% religious but not spiritual).  A very concerning point he seems to have missed entirely from his link.   Instead of addressing the 22% who are religious but not spiritual (a much more curious and interesting figure/problem to explore and address, I think), the author chose to go after the lower percentage of spiritual but not religious (18%).  

 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I know, but I like to point out the obvious verbal contradiction in terms. Yes, I know, I am a pedant.

But at the same time, a lot of this being "spiritual" seems to mean a kind of useless, airy, "the mountains and trees are my church" kind of spiritual. And the claim seems to serve as an excuse for just going about their own business without concern for what truly matters.

Yes, I think this is precisely what seemed to be the thrust of the article and the dismissive reaction towards "others" not of our tribe the author was going for.  

Keep in mind that there are more people who claim to be religious but not spiritual than who claim to be spiritual but not religious.  Perhaps we should turn our judgment and skepticism to our own tribe rather than judging others. 

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Like those "religious" orders that withdraw from the world in order to pray, ponder, sing, and contemplate God every livelong day. 

I'm not sure I understand the correlation you make between what you claim to be a mostly empty spirituality with the more disciplined ascetic religious orders.

 

Edited January 2, 2024 by pogi