Spiritual but not Religious

[Stargazer]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:16 PM, Calm said:

They in many cases were doing this to not serve themselves or their own spirituality, but to serve God as I understood the explanations I have read of their experiences (which I admit has been minimal).

I do understand that they had the idea that they thought they were serving God. Serving God is a noble thing, of course, but...

...does God profit from hearing endless prayers? Does God profit from the deliberate infliction of "punishment" upon oneself? Or from hiding away from the world to feel holy?

On 1/3/2024 at 10:16 PM, Calm said:

My guess is they saw themselves doing much what they believed mankind will be doing for eternity, worshipping God as the center of our existence.  They were fulfilling what they believed was the ultimate purpose of humanity, to give glory to God. In essence they were bringing heaven to earth.  There were believers who saw a benefit to this, someone was making a sacred space on earth….much like how some might view temples when they themselves never get to enter them, but see value in just the presence. 

I apologize for my harshness, but what they saw themselves doing was not what they were doing. Does God want us to engage in a life of mendicancy and asceticism, a life of prayer? Not that I can tell. I can feel quite holy in myself, being satisfied with reading the scriptures and praying daily, but what of it? What good am I doing? If a sister in my ward phones me up to come to give her sick husband a blessing, do I serve God by delaying helping her in order to not interrupt my program of "Come Follow Me" study? I hope not.

On 1/3/2024 at 10:16 PM, Calm said:

You may not see any charity in such efforts, but others do from what I have seen. They serve man when they serve God. 

I know some see charity in such efforts; I hope they feel inspired thereby.

But "serving man by serving God?" What service does God want or need? King Benjamin taught it the other way around, serving God by serving man: "...when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." (Mosiah 2:17)

Dear Calm, I am not arguing with you. I know those people of the past (and even of the present) hide or hid themselves away from the world as a consequence of apostasy, and it is difficult to cast blame upon them, because whose fault was it that they misunderstood? The Greek philosophers of the past believed that God was Spirit, and all material was imperfect, so they taught the Christians their false ideology. And it continues to this day.

[Stargazer]

On 1/4/2024 at 2:37 PM, Tacenda said:

I think there's a better word than "rant" here. 

Well, some of them do "rant," it seems like. But maybe "grumble" is a better word.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But if I am not mindful enough, and fail to process the experience or its meaning, the absence of my experience and its meaning to me does come from my mind (so their presence would, too). The world is still there and still goes on, with or without my mindfulness or experiencing stepping on the lego, the pain, the annoyance, etc. My positivity that the experience came from the interaction of the things in the world around me (the lego, my foot, the darkness, my sleepiness, the shape of the lego, the sensitivity of my foot -- not mention that !@#$ kid!) and not my mind's process of these interactions into the form of a describable awareness of the things around me, comes from my mind having to / learning to economically deal with the world around me in a conscious state.

Yep.

[Stargazer]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:57 PM, pogi said:

As a postmodernist, it seems that one has to hide a lot at church.  It is not safe to be and express your authentic self.  It is not a place of belonging, it is a place of fitting in. 

After nearly 60 years of church membership and gospel study I have acquired a superset of beliefs and convictions not taught in church manuals that I would do well to keep to myself in meetings. Not for my benefit so much as for the benefit of others who haven't been on the same road as I, or who are not as far along as I am. 

It is definitely a place of fitting in! Assuming that my more advanced understanding of, say, the Atonement, is actually valid, does it benefit others who are at a more basic level of understanding for me to teach my understanding as if it were a canon teaching of the Church? I think not! Such things should be understood to be "private interpretations," I feel. Yes, they might be true, but they are of lesser value to the general membership than that which the Church causes to be taught.

 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

does God profit from hearing endless prayers? Does God profit from the deliberate infliction of "punishment" upon oneself? Or from hiding away from the world to feel holy?

God profits from love and worship….the intent is likely the only important thing rather than the form.  The form is what may help us humans imo and if it brings us closer to God, then it is profitable.

Bluntly, you sound much like the antimormons condemning our temple work.  It makes me very cautious about accepting your judgment.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

God profits from love and worship….the intent is likely the only important thing rather than the form.  The form is what may help us humans imo and if it brings us closer to God, then it is profitable.

I can definitely agree that intent is the operative word. But the problem of intent is the old phrase involving the road to hell. I will grant that the Islamic suicide bomber may intend great things for God's honor, but I have grave doubts about God sanctioning his intent and his act. 

However, I should not have been judging the intent of those who hid themselves away to do what they believed to be the will of God, even if it had little to do with what God wanted. 

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bluntly, you sound much like the antimormons condemning our temple work.  It makes me very cautious about accepting your judgment.

You should be cautious. I'm not someone who is seeking for disciples, and I should hope you would weigh everything I say with great circumspection. No doubt someone else might have expressed what I have been saying more softly. I was myself being blunt because of what I saw as a horrible diversion from what God wants of us, into something that seems almost wholly the will of man.

I'm not sure why you would think I sound like those who condemn our temple work, but if I came across like that, please be assured that I regard temple work as extremely important, and vital. 

What we do in the temples has literally nothing to do with all the hermits, ascetics, and monks who have sheltered themselves away from life in order to fast, pray, and practice self-mortification. They benefit no-one but themselves (and not even themselves, truth be told).  What we do in the temple benefits our kindred dead in unparalleled ways. Our service in the temples makes us "saviors on Mount Zion," whereas the hermit in his cell praying every hour of every day serves nobody.

And I see I'm getting passionate about this again. 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

'm not sure why you would think I sound like those who condemn our temple work, but if I came across like that, please be assured that I regard temple work as extremely important, and vital. 

And those who choose to follow or support monastic work likely feel the same about their worship form that you are condemning. 

 

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

They benefit no-one but themselves (and not even themselves, truth be told). 

So you assume just as the antimormons assume we are benefitting no one by our temple work and most definitely not ourselves and instead wasting our time and effort on meaninglessness or worse, idolatry, when we should be out in the world helping those in need. 
 

If we believe that prayers and blessings, fasting and temple work are meaningful and accomplish spiritual things just as those who engage in monastic activities see what they are doing as deeply meaningful and worthwhile spiritually, then I see little reason for us to condemn monastic worship as meaningless. For all we know, we could be all connected spiritually and someone praying in the desert is heard by all in the world and draws humanity closer to God with themselves. 
 

Mortification of the body…I do have reservations about because it can affect health and health affects the spirit. Sickness can impair communication through the spirit, but the rest I believe we should leave to the believers’ judgment as long as they are not harming others  by their actions. 
 

I would modify the below by changing out “sin” for “worship “.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf: “Don't judge me because I sin differently from you.”

 

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

And those who choose to follow or support monastic work likely feel the same about their worship form that you are condemning. 

No doubt! But they're wrong. 😄 

Nevertheless, were I to visit an active monastery, I'd consider making at least a small donation to the facility a worthy thing to do. Because despite the ultimate foolishness in real terms of a monastic life, their motives are admirable.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you assume just as the antimormons assume we are benefitting no one by our temple work and most definitely not ourselves and instead wasting our time and effort on meaninglessness or worse, idolatry, when we should be out in the world helping those in need. 

The anti-Mormons assume we're wasting our time no matter what. And I don't care that they assume we're benefitting no one. I grant them their sincerity, but sincerity is not enough. Truth is what is important, and following God's commands. 

I know you are trying to be understanding and generous of the motives behind these practices. I appreciate the loving kindness that you are expressing. 

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

If we believe that prayers and blessings, fasting and temple work are meaningful and accomplish spiritual things just as those who engage in monastic activities see what they are doing as deeply meaningful and worthwhile spiritually, then I see little reason for us to condemn monastic worship as meaningless. For all we know, we could be all connected spiritually and someone praying in the desert is heard by all in the world and draws humanity closer to God with themselves. 

I suppose it's possible. 

But monastic worship seems to me to come extremely close, if not land squarely on, the condemnation that Jesus gave when he taught what we call the Lord's Prayer:

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

James spoke harshly about those who wrapped themselves in the supposed warmness of their "faith" while eschewing "works." He said that "faith without works is dead." If one can do nothing about a matter except pray about it, then pray freely. But if one can do something in addition to praying about it, and yet one does nothing, then that strikes me as a vain repetition, or faith without works. I sometimes hear people giving a blessing on the food who include such things as "bless those who have no food so that they can have enough," but I wonder what they are doing about others' hunger besides praying about it. It's not my job (nor my privilege) to judge them. But for myself, I would hesitate to pray in such a way, without doing something to actually assist those in need. 

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mortification of the body…I do have reservations about because it can affect health and health affects the spirit. Sickness can impair communication through the spirit, but the rest I believe we should leave to the believers’ judgment as long as they are not harming others  by their actions. 

Of course. I do leave it to their judgement. What you do to yourself is your own privilege and responsibility. Nevertheless, I still have a negative opinion of it. Because ultimately what they are doing is implicitly denying Christ's own suffering for sin. And trying to replace it with their own. If they were to ask me that's what I would tell them. 

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would modify the below by changing out “sin” for “worship “.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf: “Don't judge me because I sin differently from you.”

I've attended non-LDS worship services and found them uplifting. And what's to judge? But not all modes of worship are righteous or worthy of praise. The worship of the ancient Aztecs was satanic -- human sacrifice is worthy of judgement. You can say that I'm taking this to an absurd extreme by bringing the Aztecs into the equation, but...

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

I'm not sure how to interpret this -- do you mean to describe a dis, a thumbs up or a shrug?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

After nearly 60 years of church membership and gospel study I have acquired a superset of beliefs and convictions not taught in church manuals that I would do well to keep to myself in meetings. Not for my benefit so much as for the benefit of others who haven't been on the same road as I, or who are not as far along as I am. 

It is definitely a place of fitting in! Assuming that my more advanced understanding of, say, the Atonement, is actually valid, does it benefit others who are at a more basic level of understanding for me to teach my understanding as if it were a canon teaching of the Church? I think not! Such things should be understood to be "private interpretations," I feel. Yes, they might be true, but they are of lesser value to the general membership than that which the Church causes to be taught.

 

I think the same goes for social and cultural understanding: we need to move, inspire and wait for each other toward Zion as together as possible.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure how to interpret this -- do you mean to describe a dis, a thumbs up or a shrug?

It is intended to indicate approval

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No doubt! But they're wrong. 😄 

Nevertheless, were I to visit an active monastery, I'd consider making at least a small donation to the facility a worthy thing to do. Because despite the ultimate foolishness in real terms of a monastic life, their motives are admirable.

The anti-Mormons assume we're wasting our time no matter what. And I don't care that they assume we're benefitting no one. I grant them their sincerity, but sincerity is not enough. Truth is what is important, and following God's commands. 

I know you are trying to be understanding and generous of the motives behind these practices. I appreciate the loving kindness that you are expressing. 

I suppose it's possible. 

But monastic worship seems to me to come extremely close, if not land squarely on, the condemnation that Jesus gave when he taught what we call the Lord's Prayer:

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

James spoke harshly about those who wrapped themselves in the supposed warmness of their "faith" while eschewing "works." He said that "faith without works is dead." If one can do nothing about a matter except pray about it, then pray freely. But if one can do something in addition to praying about it, and yet one does nothing, then that strikes me as a vain repetition, or faith without works. I sometimes hear people giving a blessing on the food who include such things as "bless those who have no food so that they can have enough," but I wonder what they are doing about others' hunger besides praying about it. It's not my job (nor my privilege) to judge them. But for myself, I would hesitate to pray in such a way, without doing something to actually assist those in need. 

Of course. I do leave it to their judgement. What you do to yourself is your own privilege and responsibility. Nevertheless, I still have a negative opinion of it. Because ultimately what they are doing is implicitly denying Christ's own suffering for sin. And trying to replace it with their own. If they were to ask me that's what I would tell them. 

I've attended non-LDS worship services and found them uplifting. And what's to judge? But not all modes of worship are righteous or worthy of praise. The worship of the ancient Aztecs was satanic -- human sacrifice is worthy of judgement. You can say that I'm taking this to an absurd extreme by bringing the Aztecs into the equation, but...

With all due respect, how much do you actually know about monastic life and orders? Because your descriptions are coming off as more caricatures and diminutive. And I see that a ton with critiques and views of lds members who are also defined and viewed from the most extreme and rigid orientations with the faith. Those do exist, but they're not by any means all the practice. 

 

Likewise monastic life widely varies in practice and communal engagement. Personally I know I've been blessed by ancient monks every time I yank out my bible. It's medieval monks that were essential in the transmission of scripture to our current day before we have print. Monasteries have also served the communities, acting as safe havens, places of refuge, and even hospitals/medical care, and proselytizign soources. Many are self-sustaining (particularly Catholic ones), meaning they don't generally ask nor need charity....quite the reverse. Many were able to give to the poor and support them by working their agricultural land and raising up food they'd give to the poor. 

I don't know much about monasteries and reclusive lifestyles. But I can appreciate that they have purposes that can directly help the larger religious and general community. It didn't take long to see that all they do is not simply pray all day. A quick Google search or two showed that. Before heavily criticizing them, it would be better to make sure you really know what they are.

 

Dont get me wrong, I'm sure there are monastic communities in and out of Christianity that fit your descriptions. There are things one likely can critique about them and their functions. That's true with just about every lifestyle and practice humans have come up with. There are members of the church that fit negative assertions about the church. But that's not the entirety of these communities. More importantly I don't have enough of a grasp about the diverse practices to ground any potential criticisms I could have. So I veer away from doing so. If only because I do not enjoy leading out with my ignorance. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited January 7, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Stargazer]

On 1/7/2024 at 3:03 PM, BlueDreams said:

With all due respect, how much do you actually know about monastic life and orders? Because your descriptions are coming off as more caricatures and diminutive. And I see that a ton with critiques and views of lds members who are also defined and viewed from the most extreme and rigid orientations with the faith. Those do exist, but they're not by any means all the practice. 

I've read a lot about them. Obviously I haven't lived the kind of life that they represent. In that sense I do not understand them -- much in the same way that I cannot understand the life of slaves in the US South before the Civil War, and only know about them from reading. But I can still judge the matter from the understanding that I do have. 

There have been many forms of slavery throughout human history. Some of them have been less oppressive than others, but all have been bad. I can make that judgement, even though I've not been a slave, just as I can make a judgement about monasticism, having not lived that life. Sure some monastic practices were better than others, but monasticism in itself I judge to be bad.

On 1/7/2024 at 3:03 PM, BlueDreams said:

Likewise monastic life widely varies in practice and communal engagement. Personally I know I've been blessed by ancient monks every time I yank out my bible. It's medieval monks that were essential in the transmission of scripture to our current day before we have print. Monasteries have also served the communities, acting as safe havens, places of refuge, and even hospitals/medical care, and proselytizign soources. Many are self-sustaining (particularly Catholic ones), meaning they don't generally ask nor need charity....quite the reverse. Many were able to give to the poor and support them by working their agricultural land and raising up food they'd give to the poor. 

Yes, they served valuable functions in the circumstances in which they existed. It is good that they kept religious scholarship and other education alive in the dark ages. Freely admitted! 

But regardless, I still feel that monasticism is not a good thing. 

On 1/7/2024 at 3:03 PM, BlueDreams said:

I don't know much about monasteries and reclusive lifestyles. But I can appreciate that they have purposes that can directly help the larger religious and general community. It didn't take long to see that all they do is not simply pray all day. A quick Google search or two showed that. Before heavily criticizing them, it would be better to make sure you really know what they are.

Dont get me wrong, I'm sure there are monastic communities in and out of Christianity that fit your descriptions. There are things one likely can critique about them and their functions. That's true with just about every lifestyle and practice humans have come up with. There are members of the church that fit negative assertions about the church. But that's not the entirety of these communities. More importantly I don't have enough of a grasp about the diverse practices to ground any potential criticisms I could have. So I veer away from doing so. If only because I do not enjoy leading out with my ignorance. 

with luv, 

BD 

I'm well aware that men and women in past (and certainly present) monastic organizations have benefitted us, and probably continue to do so. And I am quite willing to grant that many and even most of those participating in these orders (and not just the Christian ones) are doing so out of a true commitment to God (or the Higher Being of their choice). And that is something that can be admired to a certain extent.

And despite any objection I express, I have great respect for the love and commitment these folks have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate.

But my beef with the Christian ones, at least, is that regardless of conviction and benefits to humanity, monasticism is a false tradition, and a perversion of Christ's teachings. And every single thing that the monasteries did that was positive, could have been done by men and women who were not shut up in monasteries. 

As evidence that monasticism is not a true principle of the Gospel, ask yourself whether Christ included monasticism as a principle of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The answer to the question is "No." And as a consequence I can say without fear of contradiction that monasticism is an apostate practice in the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of whatever benefits its practice might have provided.

[Stargazer]

@Calm and @BlueDreams, please take note of the fact that while I feel strongly that monasticism is a false Christian practice (stopping just short of calling it evil), like the principle of loving the sinner while hating the sin, I admire the dedication and love that many of monasticism's participants demonstrated in its practice, even while I condemn the practice  itself as a perversion of Christ's teachings. 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As evidence that monasticism is not a true principle of the Gospel, ask yourself whether Christ included monasticism as a principle of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The answer to the question is "No." And as a consequence I can say without fear of contradiction that monasticism is an apostate practice in the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of whatever benefits its practice might have provided.

I don't think that is a good measure for anything given that we believe in an open canon and continuing revelation. 

Quote

We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.  

Not saying that we are likely to see monasticism in the church, but in general it is a bad way to assess things. 

For what it is worth, for how much we herald personal revelation and for all that we teach about personal revelation in the church, I learned more about personal revelation, prayer and the contemplative experience in connecting with and hearing/experiencing the divine through the writings of one Benedictine monk than I even came close to learning or experiencing from 35 years of faithfully attending and practicing the LDS faith.   For being an "apostate" practice, I grew more spiritually from their experiential knowledge through devotion than anything I have yet to experience.    Instead of brushing them aside as "apostate" and needless by suggesting that they can't offer anything that others can't offer, I would suggest that their unique experience may offer insights and learning opportunities that would be hard to find anywhere else.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I've read a lot about them. Obviously I haven't lived the kind of life that they represent. In that sense I do not understand them -- much in the same way that I cannot understand the life of slaves in the US South before the Civil War, and only know about them from reading. But I can still judge the matter from the understanding that I do have. 

This, incidentally captures my entire view of what we call "reality".

ALL we know is a social/psychological construct made up IN each individual's world, in the ASSUMPTION that their own experiences are of "the real world".

Yet of course they cannot be real any farther than a realization that this is MY world, which is different from YOUR world.

So the only rational world is a pragmatic one patching together paradigms/theories/constructs that SEEM to be the "best", and go from there.

But what does that fact of life do to most people's idea of "truth"?

Relativism is the best solution we can patch together, but we must know that even relativism is only relatively true!

This is why "personal revelation" works to create truth. Everything we know is ultimately "personal", so why not call it "revelation" if it brings us joy?

THAT is Alma 32.

That which is sweet IS truth 

[manol]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

The obvious question is what makes a person spiritual in their nature, versus a person who is not spiritual?

I am tempted to conclude that "spiritual" is another label people use to separate people.

Excellent point! Thank you for bringing this up. Imo it would be a mistake to use the term “spiritual” as a way to label and separate people.

Perhaps the expression “spiritual but not religious” is best applied to thought systems rather than to people.

Let me offer an example of what might be called a “spiritual but not religious” line of thinking. As a starting point I will draw from a religious text, the 88th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

“He [Christ] that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth... This is the light of Christ.

“...which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— the light which is in all things...

“…he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him...

“... the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

“Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I AM THE TRUE LIGHT THAT IS IN YOU, and that YOU ARE IN ME..." [emphasis mine]

The term “Christ” thus applies not just to the individual named Jesus, but to all of us. Christ is the authentic part of each of us, the “true light that is in [us]”, and “[we] are in [him].” At-one-ment. Oneness. Christ is the vine and we are the branches; to put it another way, Christ is the Self that we all share. In this line of thinking the term “Christ” has a plural connotation just as the term “Elohim” can have a plural connotation (in the LDS paradigm). Jesus was the first of us to have laid aside everything that was inauthentic and therefore he was ONLY the Christ, rather than “the Christ buried underneath an ego self” as is presently the case for the rest of us.

This line of thinking calls upon us to see every single person through a different lens. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" becomes literal.

This line of thinking calls upon us to expand our sense of self. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” becomes literal. “Love your neighbor as yourself” becomes literal. And your neighbor's true Self is worthy of your love, despite all outward appearances to the contrary.

This line of thinking calls upon us to see ourselves differently, and this is probably the hardest shift of all, but imo it has been hidden in plain sight all along: “That they may take upon themselves the Name of thy Son” also becomes literal.

I put forward this concept of "Christ is the Self that we all share" as an example of a line of thinking that is spiritual rather than religious. See “A Course in Miracles” (specifically the Original Edition) for more.

Edited January 8, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think that is a good measure for anything given that we believe in an open canon and continuing revelation. 

"[O]pen canon and continuing revelation" does not suggest that we can expect fundamental changes to God's work and glory.  

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not saying that we are likely to see monasticism in the church, but in general it is a bad way to assess things. 

I assess things based on revealed scripture, and scripture "as translated correctly." Not on man's wobbly assessments about what seems fashionable at the moment. 

You're right to see it as unlikely that the church would introduce monasticism, considering what the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve wrote in the Family Declaration:

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

"[R]emains in force" does not mean that the church, either the Latter-day or the Primitive one, can righteously decree that some men and women should feel free to kick multiplying and replenishing the earth to the curb in order to withdraw from the world for some dubious religious purpose, as if God approved of it.

One important reason I have a prejudice against monasticism is Moses 1:39.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

What is eternal life? It is not floating about in the clouds strumming a harp <- which is, quite frankly, what I see as monasticism. 

Eternal life is the life that the Father lives. The Father's life is action, not sedentary contemplation. It involves, first of all, participation in what is called the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant. Monasticism explicitly eschews marriage. Second, the Father's life involves the creation/organization of spirit children, who will be sent into mortality in order to be tried and tested, and commanded to multiply and replenish the earth upon which they dwell, which includes participation (if possible) in child-bearing. Monasticism implicitly (through forbidding marriage) eschews child-bearing.

Monasticism thus runs counter to the Father's work, and is therefore apostate.

It is not an argument for monasticism that the "new and everlasting covenant" was not necessarily revealed as such until the 1840s. That covenant might have been new to man in the 1840s, but as a fundamental eternal covenant it exists outside of time. 

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

For what it is worth, for how much we herald personal revelation and for all that we teach about personal revelation in the church, I learned more about personal revelation, prayer and the contemplative experience in connecting with and hearing/experiencing the divine through the writings of one Benedictine monk than I even came close to learning or experiencing from 35 years of faithfully attending and practicing the LDS faith.   For being an "apostate" practice, I grew more spiritually from their experiential knowledge through devotion than anything I have yet to experience. 

I'm glad that you learned valuable things from that Benedictine monk. No doubt I could learn valuable things from him as well (who is it, by the way?). But are you claiming that this Benedictine monk's insights into God's nature couldn't be found by him through any other way than by living a monastic life? If so, why hasn't God inspired his modern prophets to institute that mode of spiritual life, if it were so uniquely valuable?

There is no doubt that some who have lived a monastic life have gained valuable insights into the Divine, and we're lucky to have their writings. But similar insights have been provided by others who had nothing to do with that kind of life. Have you ever read The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius? There's plenty of inspirational intelligence in what he wrote, even though he was a pagan. Have you ever read anything that the great Bengal poet Rabindranath Tagore has written? Another man of valuable insight, even though he was a Hindu. 

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Instead of brushing them aside as "apostate" and needless by suggesting that they can't offer anything that others can't offer, I would suggest that their unique experience may offer insights and learning opportunities that would be hard to find anywhere else. 

I'm brushing no-one aside as apostate. I've said that I respect their dedication and desire to do well. I'm brushing aside the mode of living called monasticism as apostate. If the results brought in by some who have lived in such modes has benefitted the rest of us in some in some fashion, that's nice, but it doesn't answer the Father's intentions in regards to our purposes here.

Nothing stops a man or woman who lives a monastic life from producing something that is good or beautiful. But that mode of living was not the thing that provided the results. It that were so, then all monks and nuns would provide those results. Rather, it is the particular person, out of his or her own capability, that provides those results. Are some monks and nuns genuinely inspired? No doubt. But if the Benedictine you learned from had not been a monk, would he not nevertheless have been able to learn things he could teach you? You may feel that he wouldn't have been able to do so, but I disagree, for there are plenty of men and women who were not monks or nuns who wrote genuinely inspired works that have inspired millions. There have even been some in our Church who have taught things that have brought others to a deeper understanding of God and His Son. 

Again, I am not saying that it is monks or nuns who are apostate. It is monasticism, as a God-approved organized religious mode of living, that is apostate, because it shoves God's purposes to the side in favor of a man-made purpose.

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, manol said:

Excellent point! Thank you for bringing this up. Imo it would be a mistake to use the term “spiritual” as a way to label and separate people.

Perhaps the expression “spiritual but not religious” is best applied to thought systems rather than to people.

Let me offer an example of what might be called a “spiritual but not religious” line of thinking. As a starting point I will draw from a religious text, the 88th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

“He [Christ] that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth... This is the light of Christ.

“...which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— the light which is in all things...

“…he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him...

“... the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

“Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I AM THE TRUE LIGHT THAT IS IN YOU, and that YOU ARE IN ME..." [emphasis mine]

The term “Christ” thus applies not just to the individual named Jesus, but to all of us. Christ is the authentic part of each of us, the “true light that is in [us]”, and “[we] are in [him].” At-one-ment. Oneness. Christ is the vine and we are the branches; to put it another way, Christ is the Self that we all share. In this line of thinking the term “Christ” has a plural connotation just as the term “Elohim” can have a plural connotation (in the LDS paradigm). Jesus was the first of us to have laid aside everything that was inauthentic and therefore he was ONLY the Christ, rather than “the Christ buried underneath an ego self” as is presently the case for the rest of us.

This line of thinking calls upon us to see every single person through a different lens. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" becomes literal.

This line of thinking calls upon us to expand our sense of self. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” becomes literal. “Love your neighbor as yourself” becomes literal. And your neighbor's true Self is worthy of your love, despite all outward appearances to the contrary.

This line of thinking calls upon us to see ourselves differently, and this is probably the hardest shift of all, but imo it has been hidden in plain sight all along: “That they may take upon themselves the Name of thy Son” also becomes literal.

I put forward this concept of "Christ is the Self that we all share" as an example of a line of thinking that is spiritual rather than religious. See “A Course in Miracles” (specifically the Original Edition) for more.

Thank you for this. It is a reminder that there are pieces of Mormonism I still love and value. And I agree, it's right in line with my idea of the spiritual...for me as an atheist, it is about the light and goodness of the Christ ideal. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is not an argument for monasticism that the "new and everlasting covenant" was not necessarily revealed as such until the 1840s. That covenant might have been new to man in the 1840s, but as a fundamental eternal covenant it exists outside of time. 

I guess Jesus never got the memo , along with numerous other religions and cultures.  

If it is so clearly a fundamental and eternal covenant that has existed outside of time, then why a need for a revelation? And why call it a "new" covenant if it always existed?  

I think those who do not subscribe to Mormonism and hold the D&C as scripture have very valid scriptural reasons/interpretations to justify their practices and beliefs.   

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm glad that you learned valuable things from that Benedictine monk. No doubt I could learn valuable things from him as well (who is it, by the way?).

His name is Laurence Freeman.  He learned the practice from the early church fathers and other monastics like Theresa of Avela (Interior Castle - another great book I learned from).

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But are you claiming that this Benedictine monk's insights into God's nature couldn't be found by him through any other way than by living a monastic life?

It's hard to say.   It is like asking if there is any other way that the Buddha could have reached the same state of Nirvana and have the same insights without dedicating himself and living the monastic life that he lived and prescribed.  Probably not.  It seems like going without saying that they are going to have some unique experiences and insights that they could not have had through some other experience or lifestyle.  It's like pretending that people without children can have the same experiences as those with children, without choosing that lifestyle.  Some things can only be known/learned through experience, and different experiences offer different and unique perspectives and insights.  

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If so, why hasn't God inspired his modern prophets to institute that mode of spiritual life, if it were so uniquely valuable?

I have never been a fan of this kind of logic.  It implies that there is nothing outside of our religion that could be uniquely valuable.  Didn't Joseph and Brigham teach us to go out and learn truth from outside sources and other religions?  Why would they say that if they didn't believe that there were unique and valuable truths in other religions that have not yet been revealed in our own?  

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is no doubt that some who have lived a monastic life have gained valuable insights into the Divine, and we're lucky to have their writings. But similar insights have been provided by others who had nothing to do with that kind of life. Have you ever read The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius? There's plenty of inspirational intelligence in what he wrote, even though he was a pagan. Have you ever read anything that the great Bengal poet Rabindranath Tagore has written? Another man of valuable insight, even though he was a Hindu. 

I have no doubt that these are all great sources of unique and valuable truths.  I think the there is probably a lot to be learned from the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius, and the Hindu practices of Rabindranath Tagore.  I am sure they all have their own unique insights and perspectives.   What is your point?  Are you suggesting that they have all come to the exact same insights, experiences, and conclusions via different means?   Nothing unique or individually valuable at all?  I don't buy that for a second. 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Again, I am not saying that it is monks or nuns who are apostate. It is monasticism, as a God-approved organized religious mode of living, that is apostate, because it shoves God's purposes to the side in favor of a man-made purpose.

I understand why you may believe this from a Latter-day Saint perspective, but I am not at all confident that many of their paths were not inspired and directed by God.   God inspires everyone on earth in different ways, yet very few are inspired to follow the Mormon path.

Edited January 8, 2024 by pogi

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I guess Jesus never got the memo , along with numerous other religions and cultures.  

How did he not get the memo? 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If it is so clearly a fundamental and eternal covenant that has existed outside of time, then why a need for a revelation? And why call it a "new" covenant if it always existed?  

It was new to us. It was apparently an unrevealed doctrine prior to this time. Or if it had previously been revealed, it had been lost. That's what "restoration" means, in case you missed the turn.

Why was there a need for a revelation? The same question could be asked about why there was a need for DC 76 describing the three degrees of glory in detail. The answer is the same for both: because the full doctrines were either lost and needed to be restored, or had not previously been revealed in fullness and needed to be.

I'm sure that you've heard Eliza Snow's hymn "O My Father". And perhaps you recall the stanza:

In the heavens are parents single
No the thought makes reason stare
Truth is reason truth eternal
Tells me I’ve a Mother there
A Mother there

Since Sis. Snow's hymn is in the current hymnbook, we can probably assume that it contains true doctrine. And thus it is a "fundamental and eternal covenant that has existed outside of time," since our Heavenly Parents seem to have been there from the beginning, and outside of time.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think those who do not subscribe to Mormonism and hold the D&C as scripture have very valid scriptural reasons/interpretations to justify their practices and beliefs.   

Of course, and they're entitled to their reasons/interpretations. But they are not entitled to their own special facts that are contrary to actual facts. I do not hold to the position that the gospel of Jesus Christ stands on equal footing, in eternal truth, with the beliefs of ten thousand other faiths. Krishna is a pagan deity, as are Thor, Zeus, and Ahura Mazda, and are fictional. Their believers may feel they have valid reasons to justify their practices and beliefs, and they are entitled to those feelings, but in the end their beliefs that are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ are false. There is no way around it. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

His name is Laurence Freeman.  He learned the practice from the early church fathers and other monastics like Theresa of Avela (Interior Castle - another great book I learned from).

Thanks. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It's hard to say.   It is like asking if there is any other way that the Buddha could have reached the same state of Nirvana and have the same insights without dedicating himself and living the monastic life that he lived and prescribed.  Probably not.  It seems like going without saying that they are going to have some unique experiences and insights that they could not have had through some other experience or lifestyle.  It's like pretending that people without children can have the same experiences as those with children, without choosing that lifestyle.  Some things can only be known/learned through experience, and different experiences offer different and unique perspectives and insights.  

One problem I have with this outlook is that people devoting themselves in such ways to thinking tend to overthink things. St. Augustine is justly regarded as one of Western philosophy's most influential thinkers. There is much to admire in his writings. But at the same time he came up with some damaging ideas in regards to sexuality, original sin, infant baptism, and so on. If he had been a husband and a father, with a need to support a family, this may have prevented him from some of his excesses of thought which have led many astray.

When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove he asked which church he should join, and reported upon the answer he received: 

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

If the monasteries had been producing truth, instead of the philosophies of men with abominable creeds, then the Lord would not have said this. 

On the other hand, and I know I am repeating myself, if the Lord approved of monasticism for its supposed benefit of producing great thinkers, then he would have had His church organize such institutions. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have never been a fan of this kind of logic.  It implies that there is nothing outside of our religion that could be uniquely valuable.  Didn't Joseph and Brigham teach us to go out and learn truth from outside sources and other religions?  Why would they say that if they didn't believe that there were unique and valuable truths in other religions that have not yet been revealed in our own?  

This is a straw man. I did not imply that there was nothing valuable outside our religion. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have no doubt that these are all great sources of unique and valuable truths.  I think the there is probably a lot to be learned from the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius, and the Hindu practices of Rabindranath Tagore.  I am sure they all have their own unique insights and perspectives.   What is your point?  Are you suggesting that they have all come to the exact same insights, experiences, and conclusions via different means?   Nothing unique or individually valuable at all?  I don't buy that for a second. 

Again with the straw man. I said that plenty of deep thoughts and precious insights have been produced by men (and women) leading lives outside the monasteries, by which I meant to say that the monasteries are not needed in order to produce brilliant, valuable, and insightful thoughts. Because plenty of such thoughts have been produced outside them.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I understand why you may believe this from a Latter-day Saint perspective, but I am not at all confident that many of their paths were not inspired and directed by God.   God inspires everyone on earth in different ways, yet very few are inspired to follow the Mormon path.

I am surprised by your apparent claim that validity or truth of a matter is signaled by how many people follow it. From the look of things as they are progressing, the world of men is trending towards atheism and agnosticism. This does not mean that atheism and agnosticism are more valid because they are attracting more converts.

Finally, I am confident that even many of those confined in monasteries were inspired and directed by God within their sphere of knowledge. I've been trying to say that while many valuable works have been produced by men and women in monasteries, this does not confer validity upon the institution of monasticism. My objection to monasticism is that it is contrary to the purposes of God to hide oneself away from the world as a form of worship. He has never commanded this, and it is a teaching of men.

 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Stargazer
clarification

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

His name is Laurence Freeman. 

Thanks for that. I went looking for him om Amazon, found an interesting book by him concerning mediation. Got the Kindle version and am reading it now. 

Useful sample: "We do not express our needs to God either to inform God of what he does not know or to persuade God to change his mind. If we do pray for our needs, it is above all because doing so deepens our trust that God knows and God cares."

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

Ah, but I am paired.

Your poor wife 😁😉

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/3/2024 at 7:54 AM, Stargazer said:

What I was criticizing was those religious orders whose practitioners withdraw from the world and spend all day every day in their cell, year upon year, serving no-one except their own supposed spirituality, relying upon handouts given by others who assume that these hermits are "godly" or "holy" when they are nothing of the kind.

Just to clarify from the Catholic point of view: this is NOT how Catholicism views the contemplative orders at all. The unceasing prayers and sacrifices (does anyone here want to live their life?) are for the benefit of all. 

Why do you say contemplative monks aren’t holy? Have you spent any time at a monastery?

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/6/2024 at 11:53 AM, mfbukowski said:

Step on your kid's lego at 2 am while shuffling to the bathroom, and you will be POSITIVE that not all experiences come from your own mind. 🤨😩

So, Samuel Johnson steps on a Lego instead of kicking a rock 😂 Berkeley is refuted! 😁