Early Latter-day Saints Repudiating Spiritual Experiences / Theophanies

[smac97]

A not-uncommon theme in Latter-day Saint discussion of the Restoration is how the Witnesses, despite many of them leaving the Church and becoming seriously disaffected from Joseph Smith, never repudiated their previously-declared statements regarding the Plates and/or miraculous spiritual experiences/theophanies.

In Latter-day Saint history, did any self-declared percipient witness to purportedly miraculous events in its early years ever A) make a public (or privately-recorded) statement about the event(s) and thereafter B) publicly retract or repudiate said statement?

Any sources would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[Dario_M]

I find it always strange how some ex members from the LDS community in the beginning when they're still part of the church claims how strong their testimony is and then a year later or so they end up leaving the church. And i'm like.... how?🤷‍♀️ Maybe because they don't believe in it anymore? Reject Joseph Smiths legend? Call the LDS community a cult and their previously declared statements regarding the plates where found also doesn't suite their new ideas of the "truth" anymore? And those are the Saints who claimed to have such a strong testimony when attending church at the beginning. I then ask myself...did you really had such a strong testimony? Or did you have (and still are) just been so full of potatoes? 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Dario_M

[webbles]

A possible instance is in the letter from Stephen Burnett to Lyman Johnson.  In that letter, Stephen writes that Martin Harris publicly said that he only saw the plates in a vision and that the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates and were hesitant to sign the 8 witness document.

See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-2/69

It is a second hand source, but what ever Martin did say, it was enough to make Stephen doubt everything about the Book of Mormon.

[tana]

So look God, thank you for sending John the B. and Peter James and John to deliver the holy hand-grenades but ... this guy Joseph is getting on my nerves so, even tho I know the church is true, imma have to go join this other church that isn't true. Catch you later. - Oliver Cowdrey.

[Autonomous]

I've reprudiated my early "spiritual" experiences.  I now interpret what some call "feeling the spirit" as instead just feeling the electromagnetic waves floating around - haha - cool sensations, but not from God, and certainly not trustworthy  (from my experience).  

[The Nehor]

George A. Smith reported that David Whitmer said he saw three angels moving down in the aisle at one of the Kirtland Temple dedication sessions. David Whitmer said:

“The great heavenly 'visitation,' which was alleged to have taken place in the temple at Kirtland, was a grand fizzle. The elders were assembled on the appointed day, which was promised would be a veritable day of Pentecost, but there was no visitation. No Peter, James and John; no Moses and Elias, put in an appearance. 'I was in my seat on that occasion,' says Mr. Whitmer, 'and I know that the story sensationally circulated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was nothing but a trumped up yarn.”

It is possible the first report was a mistake but if not this is a change of story.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

George A. Smith reported that David Whitmer said he saw three angels moving down in the aisle at one of the Kirtland Temple dedication sessions. David Whitmer said:

“The great heavenly 'visitation,' which was alleged to have taken place in the temple at Kirtland, was a grand fizzle. The elders were assembled on the appointed day, which was promised would be a veritable day of Pentecost, but there was no visitation. No Peter, James and John; no Moses and Elias, put in an appearance. 'I was in my seat on that occasion,' says Mr. Whitmer, 'and I know that the story sensationally circulated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was nothing but a trumped up yarn.”

It is possible the first report was a mistake but if not this is a change of story.

Source: High Priest David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses, The Des Moines Daily News, Oct. 16, 1886; online at Link is here.

https://rsc.byu.edu/regional-studies-latter-day-saint-church-history-ohio-upper-canada/faith-devotion-building-kirtland-temple#_note-21

Thanks for this.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[Kevin Christensen]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

A possible instance is in the letter from Stephen Burnett to Lyman Johnson.  In that letter, Stephen writes that Martin Harris publicly said that he only saw the plates in a vision and that the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates and were hesitant to sign the 8 witness document.

See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-2/69

It is a second hand source, but what ever Martin did say, it was enough to make Stephen doubt everything about the Book of Mormon.

Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses has a detailed discussion of the Burnett letter, pages 155-159.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

On 11/27/2024 at 11:59 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses has a detailed discussion of the Burnett letter, pages 155-159.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

A more recent and very useful discussion of the Burnett letter is "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses: An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking"
Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot in the Religious Educator, here:

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-25-no-2-2024/stephen-burnett-versus-eight-witnesses?fbclid=IwY2xjawEU_jZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXxt4qfZ2YUk4ZGJYLcwnPn2bFQGjL9AEdtTZ9W3nEiJuXDxJam9azKtzQ_aem_PjGSRuU9AiT0D6H7id5DBA

Their conclusion:

Quote

Having systematically compared the claims made in Burnett’s letter to the broader historical record on the Eight Witnesses’ experience, we find no basis for giving credence to the former. The evidence compels us to concur with the late Richard Lloyd Anderson, who concluded after his own careful study that Burnett’s letter “has no value when the Eight Witnesses themselves contradict it consistently and clearly.”[98] The simple fact is this: every one of Burnett’s claims made about the Eight Witnesses is fatally undermined by stronger historical data. To give singular emphasis or preference to Burnett’s thirdhand hearsay testimony over the direct, unambiguous testimonies of the Eight Witnesses themselves or those close to them (including immediate family) is nothing short of historiographical malpractice. In no other circumstance and for no other historical subject would it be considered acceptable by the catholic standards of critical methodology to favor a source like Burnett over far better and reliable testimonies. The fact that so many do favor Burnett uncritically as a source for understanding the experience of the Eight Witnesses speaks either to their biases (whether conscious or unconscious) or to their inability to exercise mature historical thinking. We hasten to add that we do not think Burnett was consciously lying about what he thought he heard Martin Harris say. Instead, giving him the benefit of the doubt, we believe that Burnett sincerely mistook what Martin was saying and jumped to several hasty, unwarranted conclusions about the Eight Witnesses and their experience based on that misunderstanding.[99] This is the most charitable we can be with Burnett, since, as we have shown at length, his claims simply do not withstand scrutiny.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 9, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
Added quote.

[Mfbnew]

I typically think philosophically, which means that I look upon the value of the philosophy presented in the argument, and NOT how the IDEA is presented.

Knowing that it is wrong to steal or murder is quite independent of historical examples showing that one or the other argument was "confirmed" by person A, or opposed by person B etc.

I look at the value of the belief, not who believed it or disbelieved it.   That's all I need.

After studying the teachings of church for over 50 years now, in detail, I have found its beliefs - that is the theology of the church- is the best available outlook for humanity.

I find the belief that God is an exalted human, for example, is a wonderful way to think about God and to feel closer to that image than seeing God as a Transcendent cloud of spirit, for example.

I believe that Joseph "delivered" the Book of Mormon to mankind,- one way or another- and that this book presents beliefs that are of tremendous value to mankind.

Everything we know about everything is tainted by our perceptions, by what others say about a given volume, about who also believes, and who doesn't believe in any given principle.

For me, the "TRUTH" of any statement, for any given individual's beliefs or ideas is determined by how satisfactory these beliefs ARE in that person's life.

Certainly it is NOT "true" that "all men are created equal"- but it is the BEST view for mankind in general in a practical way to teach us to show love for each other and learn how to accept that belief AS IF it was true- and that in itself MAKES the statement "true".   And as more and more people BELIEVE that "one should treat all humans as if equal" - peace will be generated in society.   And that is defined as "Good".   It doesn't matter who first thought up the idea or if the principle is "true or false"- those words become irrelevant when one looks for the "best" belief even though it might not be "true" that all people ARE actually "equal"

Over 3000 years have passed with philosophers trying to find a universal definition of "truth"- to no avail.

For me, what counts is the "proof in the pudding"- does the belief or technique provide us with an improvement in our lives practically or spiritually?

THEN I would call the belief or technique "true."

Does the belief that there was once a man who was able to live a perfect life, and teach others how to strive for that goal, and that he was killed after having experiences of pain so that we could see him as one who had gone through every possible negative thing in life, and yet OVERCAME the evil in the world- and then even conquered death by being resurrected - does that BELIEF offer all mankind an ideal pattern for "overcoming" the evil in the world?   Does it not make sense to use such a person as one who IS HIMSELF "God"?   If there was such a person- how could he NOT be "God"?   Who else would one want to emulate than someone perfect who even overcame death as well as every pain that any human could ever feel?

And so I tend to not care much about the historicity of events- just what examples and what ideas they presented for us, that we want to emulate.  For this purpose, a parable is as good as an "actual event" as far as I am concerned.   It is the IDEA that is important, in this case, NOT the alleged "reality" of any given event.  

The way we THINK is really all have or are as humans.  It is what is "in our heads" that creates all we see and believe.

You can't build a house without some kind of description in your mind, and you can't find God without some idea of what such a being would be.

Like everything in life, one must MENTALLY "see" the end in mind before that end can be achieved.  That is true in building a house or finding God- the end has to be "seen" before the path can be followed.   

If one's life is absorbed in history, he will never see the future.

Again, faith is HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN.

We can either have FAITH in the History OR faith in the PRINCIPLE taught.

What is most important to you- was it Ugh or Pug who invented the wheel?   Would you argue about the case for each one or the principle that works- the wheel itself?  For me, I really don't care.

I want to know what kind of "God" exemplifies and/or teaches the PRINCIPLE of what kind of human can be seen as "perfect".

I want to be the ideal, perfect human-- though I am fully aware that the idea that only one other made it that far.  Emulating what I see as the "PERFECT HUMAN" is my personal challenge.  And it is up to me to decipher what that means, for myself.

 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Dario_M]

On 11/27/2024 at 5:58 PM, smac97 said:

A not-uncommon theme in Latter-day Saint discussion of the Restoration is how the Witnesses, despite many of them leaving the Church and becoming seriously disaffected from Joseph Smith.

Yeah i find it always quite sad when people from the LDS community are leaving the church and becoming seriously disaffected from Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith may injoyed several wives throughout his live. But overal i believe that Joseph Smith was a good man and that people should have given him more credits eventhough there's so much negativity in the CES letter about him. Think for a sec about all the good things he have done. Building up a new church, given money to the poor, he had courage.

Be thankfull for all his revelations that he received from God. Because of him we now have so much more insight in what our lord God expects from us. God have mercy. 

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

I typically think philosophically, which means that I look upon the value of the philosophy presented in the argument, and NOT how the IDEA is presented.

Knowing that it is wrong to steal or murder is quite independent of historical examples showing that one or the other argument was "confirmed" by person A, or opposed by person B etc.

I look at the value of the belief, not who believed it or disbelieved it.   That's all I need.

After studying the teachings of church for over 50 years now, in detail, I have found its beliefs - that is the theology of the church- is the best available outlook for humanity.

I find the belief that God is an exalted human, for example, is a wonderful way to think about God and to feel closer to that image than seeing God as a Transcendent cloud of spirit, for example.

I believe that Joseph "delivered" the Book of Mormon to mankind,- one way or another- and that this book presents beliefs that are of tremendous value to mankind.

Everything we know about everything is tainted by our perceptions, by what others say about a given volume, about who also believes, and who doesn't believe in any given principle.

For me, the "TRUTH" of any statement, for any given individual's beliefs or ideas is determined by how satisfactory these beliefs ARE in that person's life.

Certainly it is NOT "true" that "all men are created equal"- but it is the BEST view for mankind in general in a practical way to teach us to show love for each other and learn how to accept that belief AS IF it was true- and that in itself MAKES the statement "true".   And as more and more people BELIEVE that "one should treat all humans as if equal" - peace will be generated in society.   And that is defined as "Good".   It doesn't matter who first thought up the idea or if the principle is "true or false"- those words become irrelevant when one looks for the "best" belief even though it might not be "true" that all people ARE actually "equal"

Over 3000 years have passed with philosophers trying to find a universal definition of "truth"- to no avail.

For me, what counts is the "proof in the pudding"- does the belief or technique provide us with an improvement in our lives practically or spiritually?

THEN I would call the belief or technique "true."

Does the belief that there was once a man who was able to live a perfect life, and teach others how to strive for that goal, and that he was killed after having experiences of pain so that we could see him as one who had gone through every possible negative thing in life, and yet OVERCAME the evil in the world- and then even conquered death by being resurrected - does that BELIEF offer all mankind an ideal pattern for "overcoming" the evil in the world?   Does it not make sense to use such a person as one who IS HIMSELF "God"?   If there was such a person- how could he NOT be "God"?   Who else would one want to emulate than someone perfect who even overcame death as well as every pain that any human could ever feel?

And so I tend to not care much about the historicity of events- just what examples and what ideas they presented for us, that we want to emulate.  For this purpose, a parable is as good as an "actual event" as far as I am concerned.   It is the IDEA that is important, in this case, NOT the alleged "reality" of any given event.  

The way we THINK is really all have or are as humans.  It is what is "in our heads" that creates all we see and believe.

You can't build a house without some kind of description in your mind, and you can't find God without some idea of what such a being would be.

Like everything in life, one must MENTALLY "see" the end in mind before that end can be achieved.  That is true in building a house or finding God- the end has to be "seen" before the path can be followed.   

If one's life is absorbed in history, he will never see the future.

Again, faith is HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN.

We can either have FAITH in the History OR faith in the PRINCIPLE taught.

What is most important to you- was it Ugh or Pug who invented the wheel?   Would you argue about the case for each one or the principle that works- the wheel itself?  For me, I really don't care.

I want to know what kind of "God" exemplifies and/or teaches the PRINCIPLE of what kind of human can be seen as "perfect".

I want to be the ideal, perfect human-- though I am fully aware that the idea that only one other made it that far.  Emulating what I see as the "PERFECT HUMAN" is my personal challenge.  And it is up to me to decipher what that means, for myself.

 

I liked your old Picasso-esque avatar picture. Is there any way for you to put it on your new account?

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I liked your old Picasso-esque avatar picture. Is there any way for you to put it on your new account?

I am glad you liked it- the symbolism to ME was that we create our own image of our "self"- and yes that is a "Self Portrait" painted by Picasso himself.   That was the entire "point" of his art- that we do not see things "as they are" but through our own lens.  Essentially the point is that we all create our own "worlds".

It's odd but I got that idea as a kid-like 12 years old or so- when I heard a commercial for "The Wonderful World of Disney" and realized that there were IN FACT as many "worlds" as there were humans- each one constructed by each human- as "Disney"- in quotes because he was both a person and a brand-name- created his personal world which just happened to become a wonderful "world" for all of us- or at least that was its intention.

I am still trying to get my old identity back-which in itself is an incredible concept.   But "identity theft" is commonplace thing nowadays- a concept which - a few years ago- would have been inconceivable!! 

I had an opportunity to visit Berlin a few years ago, and I have a picture of myself standing next to the actual painting by Picasso- and that might be a better "new" avatar to fulfill the symbology!   Of course no one will "get" it but me- but at least I will!   Seeing a photographic symbol of my face as it was in the past- with Picasso seeing himself in HIS world- too cool to pass up!  🤩

[Mfbnew]

9 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

I am glad you liked it- the symbolism to ME was that we create our own image of our "self"- and yes that is a "Self Portrait" painted by Picasso himself.   That was the entire "point" of his art- that we do not see things "as they are" but through our own lens.  Essentially the point is that we all create our own "worlds".

It's odd but I got thatgo to idea as a kid-like 12 years old or so- when I heard a commercial for "The Wonderful World of Disney" and realized that there were IN FACT as many "worlds" as there were humans- each one constructed by each human- as "Disney"- in quotes because he was both a person and a brand-name- created his personal world which just happened to become a wonderful "world" for all of us- or at least that was its intention.

I am still trying to get my old identity back-which in itself is an incredible concept.   But "identity theft" is commonplace thing nowadays- a concept which - a few years ago- would have been inconceivable!! 

I had an opportunity to visit Berlin a few years ago, and I have a picture of myself standing next to the actual painting by Picasso- and that might be a better "new" avatar to fulfill the symbology!   Of course no one will "get" it but me- but at least I will!   Seeing a photographic symbol of my face as it was in the past- with Picasso seeing himself in HIS world- too cool to pass up!  🤩

So I try to pull up the picture "saved" by wonderful Google, and it has apparently been lost.  Now I get to decide how to fix it..

Meh.

[Dario_M]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I liked your old Picasso-esque avatar picture. Is there any way for you to put it on your new account?

Oh my. I didn't even notice that it was him. God forbid. 

[Mfbnew]

On 12/11/2024 at 7:39 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I liked your old Picasso-esque avatar picture. Is there any way for you to put it on your new account?

...Working on it.  I have a bunch of projects going on- not the best way of getting any one of them done!  

But St. John of the Cross is helping me on translating it all into Mindfulness.....   I am beginning to understand "mysteries" better, thank you Brother John.

But I still am wearing shoes.....

These "Mormons" need to get some of this stuff, especially since we are allegedly all about the Holy Ghost speaking to us- just read this board and you see almost no evidence that we are doing that.   "If it ain't science it can't be true"- the worst fallacy of all time- people actually believe that stuff!

We need more of that stuff...  we need to become more PostModern and Post"Mormon-ism".   I am a Postmormon member of the Church of Jesus Christ- as President Nelson suggests-    And to me, that means get rid of the 19th Century stuff and go more with personal revelation.

"Qualia" is a word no one uses hereabouts- and yet that is the key to actually bridging the gap between science and St. John.  I know that is a no-no- but if you are going to talk about that which cannot be said- it is at least pointing to the experience.

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

These "Mormons" need to get some of this stuff, especially since we are allegedly all about the Holy Ghost speaking to us- just read this board and you see almost no evidence that we are doing that.   "If it ain't science it can't be true"- the worst fallacy of all time- people actually believe that stuff!

 

Yeah, not inclined to share that stuff on the board because first, too difficult to convey most experiences in detail expecting understanding and while I am okay with mundane stuff being misunderstood, the spiritual stuff holds more meaning for me and therefore I care more it is understood as I understand it as much as possible…which generally excludes online communication forms; second, they are highly intimate experiences and even I have my too personal to share boundaries; and third, I have not been mentally or spiritually impressed to share beyond the basics.

There are many things in my life happening I do not share on the board and if that happens to me who overshares tons,  then my guess is it’s unwise to assume anyone isn’t experiencing something just because they don’t mention it here.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Calm

[Gapper]

Amen to Calm. There are spiritual experiences happening and it isn't to those who are just leaders in the Church. In truth, read Jeremiah 31:31-34 (study the footnotes also, especially D*C 45:9 and thereabout). The day will come here in the last days, and in the Millennium that the Lord will put into our inward parts (think bowels of mercy and forgiveness ie initiatory ordinance) and write it in our hearts and we will become His people and He will be our God (for His people see Mosiah 4:6-7 and Mosiah 15:11-12 on what it takes to become part of His people). 

The key for me is verse 34. The day will come that will teach no more every man their neighbor (ministering will end!) and every man his brother (or sisters) for THEY (His people) shall ALL know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them . . ."   In our journey to apply His atoning and redeeming blood into our lives, it requires that we are striving to access His power by obeying the personal revelation we each receive. As we obey and that in my experience usually means being involved in the lives of others around you, serving them and seeing and loving them as the Savior sees and loves them, we come to actually know Him. Then we do receive the ministering of angels among many other wonderful gifts, not for ourselves but because we are becoming even as He is by and through Him and when the need arises, they come. They come to aid in doing genealogy so Temple Work for families can be done. They come to impress upon us who to reach out to. They come to strengthen us and to fortify us against Satan and his followers and to inform us of what is to come so that we can be prepared.

One of the hardest things I think anyone in the Church has to learn are:

1. We are each other's clinical material in the laboratory of mortality as Elder Maxwell shared. That means we must be not just tolerant of our shortcomings, but willing to forgive and look past them for each of us are imperfect men. That is one thing about the D&C I LOVE. The Lord takes a young man like Joseph Smith and by ministering to Joseph, including chastising him on a rather regular basis, the Lord begins to mold Joseph into who He, the Lord needs and wants Joseph to become.

2. Understanding our own dependence on the Savior, His atonement and power in our lives. We are spiritual beings in a mortal body and face all the temptations and challenges of mortality so we can each choose to yield to our Father through the Savior. We are going to make mistakes, that is okay, that is what the Savior is ALL about. However, if the Lord can take imperfect Joseph and mold Him into what He needed (needs) Joseph to become, then I have hope as in Moroni 7 that He, the Lord will do the same for me. Despite my imperfections and weaknesses, which are many, He will make them strengths to me as I hear and obey His voice and He will do the same for each of us.

3. It isn't about the Church. The Church is His vehicle to bring us to Him so that we can become like He is by accessing His power as manifested to us in the ordinances and corresponding covenants. I will never be able to save myself, bottom line. I can comply exercise faith in Him, repent and with Him grow and become better, but I can never do ANYTHING that will save myself. Only the Savior can do that.  We need to magnify whatever calling we have in the Church, but more importantly, we need to live a Christlike life because we are striving to become as He is. I have been in leadership in the Church, but I still hold that no one needs a calling to reach out to someone. IF the Savior directs you through the Holy Ghost to act for someone, do it, simply obey and go and do. If I and you did that more, we would KNOW Him and have His law written in our inward parts and in our hearts. Testimonies will be strengthen to the point that because me and you KNOW Him, and are becoming as He is, it won't matter if a mortal man or woman falters or struggles in their journey. We will rally to them and assist them on their journey to walk with the Savior and return to our Heavenly Father. Then you and I will have the experiences mentioned and they won't be to strengthen our faith, they will come because the Lord trusts us to do what He needs us to do to assist Him in bringing eternal life to each other. We will love Him with all our heart, might, mind and strength because He has loved us first with all His heart, might, mind and strength and to love Him is to love others as He loves them and to serve them as He serves them. We subdue our will to His. Miracles then are a result of faith and confirming the exercise of our faith, not the cause for our faith.

[Mfbnew]

On 12/14/2024 at 2:13 PM, Calm said:

Yeah, not inclined to share that stuff on the board because first, too difficult to convey most experiences in detail expecting understanding and while I am okay with mundane stuff being misunderstood, the spiritual stuff holds more meaning for me and therefore I care more it is understood as I understand it as much as possible…which generally excludes online communication forms; second, they are highly intimate experiences and even I have my too personal to share boundaries; and third, I have not been mentally or spiritually impressed to share beyond the basics.

There are many things in my life happening I do not share on the board and if that happens to me who overshares tons,  then my guess is it’s unwise to assume anyone isn’t experiencing something just because they don’t mention it here.

In my view you can either be part of the solution or part of the problem, as we watch the Titanic sink.

Yes to the idea that religious experiences constitute part of "reality" IS essential to "spiritual stuff".  You can't possibly "convey most experiences in detail" any more than you can describe the difference between yellow and red to a blind man, and that needs to be explained - how is it that some people HAVE "spiritual" experiences and others supposedly do not have them.

Well, simply KNOWING that it is "wrong" to kill babies, steal from your neighbor, lie about important matters, cheat others out of their money etc. etc. IS having a "spiritual experience" but secularists, while worrying about the welfare of the planet, and protesting against what they see as "immoral " are also having "spiritual experiences" even though they do not understand that.

And here we are, watching the Titanic sink without even ATTEMPTING to teach the secularists what a "religious experience" IS and that they simply have an understanding "gap" in what religion is or not.

Devoting one's life to saving the whales or marching against wars, trying reduce CO2 in the atmosphere or attempting to be politically "correct" all result from finding MEANING in one's life- which is exactly what religion IS!

Do we do that and at least TRY to save the Titanic??  Do we have a tacit DUTY to "go beyond the basics" to at least attempt to save the church by showing how secularism IS a "religion"?

I think it IS. 

 

[Calm]

On 12/15/2024 at 6:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

my view you can either be part of the solution or part of the problem, as we watch the Titanic sink.

If this board was all the only opportunity to share, I would. But that is not what the spirit is teaching me and it would seem odd to me to insist I knew better than the spirit in how to share with others about my experiences.

Just because you don’t see us actively addressing the solution we have been impressed to follow doesn’t mean we have embraced the problem to the point our efforts amount to rearranging deck chairs as the band plays on. 

What makes you think the secularists here don’t understand what a religious experience is given most have been religionists for much of their lives?  And certainly you have shared many, many posts with your ideas on how to fill the gap.

What more are you looking for us fellow believers?  Serious question.

[Rain]

On 12/15/2024 at 6:47 PM, Mfbnew said:

In my view you can either be part of the solution or part of the problem, as we watch the Titanic sink.

Yes to the idea that religious experiences constitute part of "reality" IS essential to "spiritual stuff".  You can't possibly "convey most experiences in detail" any more than you can describe the difference between yellow and red to a blind man, and that needs to be explained - how is it that some people HAVE "spiritual" experiences and others supposedly do not have them.

Well, simply KNOWING that it is "wrong" to kill babies, steal from your neighbor, lie about important matters, cheat others out of their money etc. etc. IS having a "spiritual experience" but secularists, while worrying about the welfare of the planet, and protesting against what they see as "immoral " are also having "spiritual experiences" even though they do not understand that.

And here we are, watching the Titanic sink without even ATTEMPTING to teach the secularists what a "religious experience" IS and that they simply have an understanding "gap" in what religion is or not.

Devoting one's life to saving the whales or marching against wars, trying reduce CO2 in the atmosphere or attempting to be politically "correct" all result from finding MEANING in one's life- which is exactly what religion IS!

Do we do that and at least TRY to save the Titanic??  Do we have a tacit DUTY to "go beyond the basics" to at least attempt to save the church by showing how secularism IS a "religion"?

I think it IS. 

 

Does this mean you are for spiritual experiences that run contrary to the church as well without people saying those who have these experiences are doing something wrong?

[Mfbnew]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Does this mean you are for spiritual experiences that run contrary to the church as well without people saying those who have these experiences are doing something wrong?

Do you believe in God's ability with ALL of us in personal revelation?

In my journey to the church, I was Catholic, atheist, a Communist, - Maoist- not just "communist" like some kind of lefty- studied Buddhism, and some serious in some other religions as well.  Yes Communism is a religion in itself-I could go on but I won't.

But each of those was a step toward where I am today.

And I am not sure what "contrary to the church" IS-IF you want a close analysis of what is "contrary" I guess it would be open rebellion to its beliefs.

But if you add concepts of symbolism to your way of seeing things, one must know that in 3000 years of Western philosophy, no one has been able to come up with what "truth" really even means!

So one has to either believe in personal revelation - I personally do believe in it- OR that personal revelation IS PERSONAL!

God leads us through experiences, I believe, that enable us in the long run, to find what we can call "truth".

Look at the story of Adam and Eve.  THEY SINNED AGAINST GOD- and it turned out to be what God wanted them to do!!

And then one has the question of what is "against the church".  Is it essentially the same belief, yet stated in a secular way?

Can a secularist speak of "following what the Universe tells you" and is that the "same thing" that the church teaches?

What if you have been so bombarded with secular anti-Mormon ideas that you cannot imagine anything like what Joseph Smith went through- YET

your actual beliefs can be seen as "the same as ours"?

Google "Oprah Winfrey Universe" and see what you find!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bSDShY9LI

So is this "wrong" and is it a "spiritual experiences that run contrary to the church".

Read Alma 32 and see if the impression follows that advice- AND Moroni 10- and imo you "can't" go wrong if all those guidelines align. 

But wait- are you then following Oprah or "the church"?

At what point does it matter?

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

On 12/11/2024 at 7:39 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I liked your old Picasso-esque avatar picture. Is there any way for you to put it on your new account?

...Working on it.  I have a bunch of projects going on- not the best way of getting any one of them done!  

But St. John of the Cross is helping me on translating it all into Mindfulness.....   I am beginning to understand "mysteries" better, thank you Brother John.

But I still am wearing shoes.....

These "Mormons" need to get some of this stuff, especially since we are allegedly all about the Holy Ghost speaking to us- just read this board and you see almost no evidence that we are doing that.   "If it ain't science it can't be true"- the worst fallacy of all time- people actually believe that stuff!

We need more of that stuff...  we need to become more PostModern and Post"Mormon-ism".   I am a Postmormon member of the Church of Jesus Christ- as President Nelson suggests-    And to me, that means get rid of the 19th Century stuff and go more with personal revelation.

"Qualia" is a word no one uses hereabouts- and yet that is the key to actually bridging the gap between science and St. John.  I know that is a no-no- but if you are going to talk about that which cannot be said- it is at least pointing to the experience.

 

 

[Mfbnew]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If this board was all the only opportunity to share, I would. But that is not what the spirit is teaching me and it would seem odd to me to insist I knew better than the spirit in how to share with others about my experiences.

Just because you don’t see us actively addressing the solution we have been impressed to follow doesn’t mean we have embraced the problem to the point our efforts amount to rearranging deck chairs as the band plays on. 

What makes you think the secularists here don’t understand what a religious experience is given most have been religionists for much of their lives?  And certainly you have shared many, many posts with your ideas on how to fill the gap.

What more are you looking for us fellow believers?  Serious question.

Serious answer: Empirical Theology.

It is today's philosophical version of "Mormonism" and is imo another branch of the Restoration-  THAT is actually my religion, that "just happens" to fit our church perfectly.

The full definition of our church lies in the temple recommend questions, which is all about "testimonies".  And testimonies are personal revelation.  And personal revelation is fully justified in Empirical Theology.

Push the idea here?   Good luck!  It's post-grad philosophy.

I'm trying.  You want honesty?  There it is.  But the patient cannot take the medication because "the church is true".   Indeed it is- BUT THAT statement needs a definition of religious "truth".

There it is.  Try it, you'll like it.

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Mfbnew

[Mfbnew]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

What more are you looking for us fellow believers?  Serious question.

Here's kind of a start- though he leaves out the dirty word "philosophy"- because this is really about metaphysics- what IS reality?   Is it what appears to us, or is it what science tells us?   He speaks about "psychology" when in fact it is about "philosophy"- do psychologists talk about "reality"?

BUT ANYWAY This is kind of a start and from BYU!!

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=intuition

From my point of view getting in the car and driving to the store through the world of my perceptions, not thinking one second about metaphysics- is still about "reality" every second.   Is that truck ahead of me "real"- or is it just the product of my perceptions?

Everything I see and do every day of my life is about what I see and experience - and if the experience of seeing that truck is "only my imagination" I would be in trouble!!

So it's all about what is "real" and what is not.

Empirical theology is about whether or not God is "real" because I experience Him- so which of the zillions of experiences I have daily- second by second- are "real"??

Why and how is seeing an angel different than seeing a truck??

This is a start- notice the size of the list of references compared to the length of the article.

So we are going to get into it on this board right?   I hope I am wrong, but I think not.

And this is for UNDERGRADS.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=intuition

 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Mfbnew