I do not believe in the Bible since it too has many issues that I am not comfortable with. For example, I believe that the world is older than 10,000 years old and that man evolved as Darwin and others have discovered.Don't make the mistake of thinking that Mormons necessarily believe like mainstream fundamentalist Christians. Many Mormons believe the world was created in six PERIODS, not DAYS. Each period could have lasted hundreds of millions of current earth years. Also, Mormons allow room for evolution as a creative tool of God. One of the most fascinating books I've ever read covers many of these topics: Earth: In the Beginning by Eric N. Skousen.
I do not believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that God flooded the world and Noah built an arc and saved two of every species. None of the above is logical nor can it be explained by contemporary scientific knowledge.First of all, "contemporary scientific knowledge" still has many blind spots and lack of understanding. Second of all, one does not have to believe these Old Testament stories to still believe in the overall Mormon gospel. Many people are agnostic about some details while still having an overall testimony. They are willing to defer judgment on these Bible stories until finding out the whole story, perhaps in the afterlife.
I also do not believe that God cares about what land Jewish people inherit or whether or not men were/are circumcised, etc. Plus, there is so much war, hatred, incest, rape, fear, etc. throughout the Bible and all of which is apparently condoned by God so this is very hard for me to make sense of or justify.
God allows these things to happen, but he doesn't condone it. Earth life is a test with two conditions: 1) both good and evil can entice people, 2) people are free to do whatever they want. So many bad things happen, but it's all part of the testing conditions and will be sorted out later. From an eternal perspective, earth life is the blink of an eye.
From my perspective, it looks like religion broadly and the Bible specifically was a creation of man's imagination. I do believe that religion has done a lot of good for the world but I also believe it has done just as much evil, if not even more. Think of all of the war and suffering caused in the name of religion. Again, much of this was actually condoned by god so I really struggle with this.
Don't lump Mormonism in with religion in general. The true, pure gospel has been relatively rare on the earth, and most religions are a mix of truth and man's imagination, as you say, including his propensity to misuse power and mistreat others. Even within Mormonism you get some individuals and groups who do that, but overall Mormonism is the pure gospel that does no evil in the world, only good.
So in short, no, I do not believe in God and Jesus as they are portrayed in the scriptures. However, I am hopeful that there is a higher power but I do not "know" if there is or not. This might be hard to hear or even understand but again, it is something that I am at peace with and definitely something that I have spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about and continue to think about.
If you are aware of all of the holes, have you found reasonable answers for them? If not, how have you been able to make sense of it?
You are taking an approach that is too intellectual, not spiritual enough. Read Alma 32 carefully. First of all, you have to WANT to believe. If you don't want to believe, then all the seeming inconsistencies and holes will give you plenty of reason not to. But if you want to believe and put some effort into developing faith, then the spirit will lead you through undeniable experiences that make it so you can be patient with the earthly flaws and the seeming holes. People who believe don't expect to understand everything all at once, but they understand everything enough to give God the benefit of the doubt that troubling things will eventually be explained to our complete satisfaction.
What jumps out at me the most is [Elder Holland's] claim that the Book of Mormon has stood up to, if even conquered any opposing claims that have been brought forward in question of its veracity. The fact of the matter is that Holland could not be more wrong about this. There are still countless claims that Book of Mormon scholars have yet to answer in a way that satisfies the scientific community or even contemporary wisdom. Ironically, one of the most damning works against the Book of Mormon was a book written about 80 years ago by Elder B.H. Roberts called "Studies of the Book of Mormon." I encourage you to read it. B.H. Roberts did a significant amount of research on several claims that challenge the veracity of the BoM to provide to the Quorum of the 12 with the hope that they could provide answers, which they did not. His final opinion is that there was an extremely high probability that Joseph Smith could have, and very likely did write the Book of Mormon (he gives several examples that are quite damning). Roberts never gave up his testimony but he definitely poked a lot of holes in the book and it is very interesting to read. To this day, most of his concerns still remain unanswered and unexplained and they are of the type that should have answers. Holland knows of this book and he also knows of all of the problems that the BoM has, so I find it disturbing that he would stand before the members of the church and claim that the BoM can stand up to modern day critics; those who don't bother to see for themselves will believe him, the rest of us who have seen and know otherwise will find fault with him.
Further, there are absolutely NO modern-day non-LDS scientific experts that believe there is any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. In fact, if you
study some of the issues yourself, you will see that the BoM has several inaccurate historical claims, e.g. there were not any horses (or any domesticated animals for that matter) in North America during the time of the BoM, most of the food items that are mentioned are inaccurate, the tools and weapons that are mentioned in the BoM were not found or even invented at the time of the BoM, civilizations were not nearly as advanced as the BoM would suggest - people actually traveled in small nomadic groups, i.e. wanderers and gatherers, etc... There are many, many, many problems that FARMS or other LDS "experts" can not rationally explain to get support from the broad scientific communities. This is a fact and it is a problem.
Additionally, many of the linguistic virtues of the BoM were actually plagarized from the King James version of the Bible, which diminishes their value. I think I recall that something like 40-50% of the BoM is plagarized word for word from the King James version of the Bible (I saw this for myself and you can too if you'd like). Further, there are even a few scriptures in the BoM that were plagarized from the Bible, which Joseph Smith ended up correcting in the Bible but forgot to correct in the Book of Mormon (I also saw this for myself). How could this ever happen if Joseph Smith was really translating a record that was written by an entirely different people than those who wrote the Bible, especially considering that Mormon's believe the King James version of the Bible is not even a pure translation like the BoM theorhetically is? The list of problems go on so either Jeffrey Holland is not being truthful or he is ignorant of the facts, both of which are problematic for someone of his position.
There are better answers for a lot of these things than you think (start plugging in some search terms at http://www.fairlds.org/), although it's true that debating the Book of Mormon on scientific grounds is never going to prove it. It's a book that tests faith, and it's possible to receive divine, supernatural confirmation of its truth. Looking at it using human tools of understanding is always going to make it come up short. It may be that God designed it that way, to help people develop faith.
Holland mentions that in the "Last Days" it is prophesied that the elect will be decieved. I have a few problems with this type of discussion. First, it is a common fear tactic that can be mis-used to convince people to belong to a specific organization simply out of fear (Mormon leaders have been guilty of this since the beginning). For example, if you lose your testimony and question the church, you will go to hell. This is a scary scenario and certainly is reason for keeping many people "in" the church. It used to scare me too but at this point, I see it for what it is and find that there is more virture in questioning and thinking for yourself than following blindly.
Your language is inaccurate and misrepresents reality. Mormons don't say you're going to go to hell for these reasons. Doubt is something to work on and can eventually lead to greater faith, but even if someone never overcomes their doubt but still lives a good life, they will receive a high degree of glory in the resurrection. And also, it's quite possible to question in the Church while still retaining a basic testimony, or enough of a testimony to know the Church doctrine and organization are the truest in the world and have divine origins.
Second, and speaking about my situation specifically, before I decided that the Church was no longer what I thought it was, I spoke with several leaders about my questions. All of them had "answers" for me, NONE of them were the same. I found this to be very problematic, especially within a church that is supposed to be lead by a living prophet. Furthermore, throughout time all of the prophets have said very different things on the same subject points and are therefore in conflict with one another, which again, is another red flag for me. Therefore, to say that I've been deceived and am in error is inaccurate when I diligently tried to find answers and only came up with more confusion. How is this my fault? I turned to my leaders and none of them had any answers that made sense or even remotely answered the question. The one answer I did get is "listen to the spirit and don't be mislead". This is quite unhelpful and an easy answer when there are no others. If Holland has the answers to all of my questions and the many others like me who also question, then he should write an authoritative book that clearly states the church's position. Unfortunately, the church is unwilling to be very clear on many simple subjects for fear of being wrong, as they have been on many occasions in the past.
Again, you are being too intellectually rigid, not relying enough on spiritual insight. Humanity is too imperfect to give you the perfect doctrinal/historical system you want. If such a thing existed, there would be no test of your faith, which is a big part of why we're on the earth. I would say humble yourself, quit relying so much on intellectual pride, and quit thinking you know better than so many other people. And if you don't want to believe, fine. It may be part of your test to go through years or decades of doubt. But if and when you get to the point where you want to believe again, the Church will be waiting for you, and you'll have to humble yourself and not expect to have all the answers be easily communicated. You're going to have to do a lot of spiritual work, not intellectual.
Regarding the spirit, this is a very elusive and vague element of faith. I saw this all of the time on my mission, as I assume you did too wherein people would share their testimony with me regarding their faith and experiences. I clearly remember many people telling me about how they believed in the Virgin Mary and even saw her. They cried as they told me, would not doubt and even bore testimony to me that they had the truth. I would always doubt their stories because they seemed so implausible but then I would bare testimony that I knew Joseph Smith's story was true, when I didn't experience it myself firsthand. So then, how can I question those feelings and not expect them to question mine? The point is, this is a very slippery slope and people of ALL religions claim to strong spiritual feelings that validate their faith, what makes the feelings Mormons have any more special or true? I've never tried to admit that I didn't have spiritual feelings about the church and uplifting experiences, I did, however I now have a hard time explaining that these feelings came from god when there is plenty of scientifc reason to support that these feelings/experiences are from the mind and can easily be explained psychologically, especially when people all over the world claim to similar feelings for different reasons.
I agree that emotion and spiritual influence are difficult to separate. But that doesn't mean that sometimes the spirit doesn't actually speak to people, beyond their own emotions. You are discounting all of it just because lots of it may be faulty. We call that throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Regarding Joseph and his brother Hyram in Carthage Jail...many people in the church do not realize that the reason why they were there in the first place is for breaking the law. Joseph Smith ordered that the printing press be burned down because reports were about to be published about his polygamous affairs and he knew this would be damning. Many of his additional wives were actually already married to other members of the church who were away serving missions overseas. These men did not know that Joseph Smith had taken their wives into secret marriages after which he had sex with them. He was not in jail being persecuted as the prophet of the church, he was in jail for breaking the law and therefore, he died because of his own mistakes and this is a fact. As an aside, I personally believe there is no purpose in polygamy, especially knowing all of the harm that it has caused the church. God could of course forsee the damage polygamy would cause and therefore, if he was really running the church, he would not have introduced such a problematic practice. Why did Joseph need to have secret marriages and have sex with other men's wives and even girls as young as 14 years old? Where is the virture in this? What is the purpose of this, especially seeing that he was the primary beneficiary of
the doctrine? Keep in mind that Joseph's wife never was in support of the doctrine and after his death, she distanced herself from the church for this purpose.
Joseph Smith may have made mistakes, but that does not negate his role as a prophet. I agree that he perhaps acted unwisely with destroying the Expositor's press. He admitted to mistakes throughout his life, but in my opinion that makes him all the more believable. As far as polygamy, it was practiced in the Old Testament and Joseph restored it. If he went too far with it, I don't really blame him and am sure he has repented. But I'm not sure he did go too far. We cannot judge until we have all the details, which we definitely do not.
Again, if you WANT to believe that God would restore the true gospel to the earth and that he has instituted the plan of salvation, etc. then God will give you ways to deal with the ambiguities. If deep down you don't really want to believe, or you want to think you're smarter than believers, or you have some other character flaw that makes you too proud to follow the path of faith, then you'll have to work through those flaws somehow. I think there's something to be said for sticking with it even if you don't have all the clarity and answers you want, and God eventually rewards such displays of would-be faith.
Not to go on and on but the bottom line is that I am happy and have peace in my life. Going to church does not make me happy anymore because I find that there are simply too many unanswered questions and it doesn't work out for me logically. I wish it did because I know it has been hard on my family but at the end of the day, you have to be true to yourself and that's what I am doing.
Personally I would probably be happier in the short term too if I didn't have to go to church. It's a discipline to go. And if you are an (overly) intellectual person, I can see where some things would irritate and dissatisfy. But you don't have anything better to replace the Church with, as far as I can see. And deep down you probably know there isn't anything any better out there, as far as religions or belief systems or whatever. So by default you join the world's growing secular/agnostic/atheist movement, which offers absolutely nothing meaningful as far as explaining why we're here on this earth or where we're going after. But that's a religion too, with its own morals and values, etc. Good luck with that.
Reconsider the story of Korihor, because you're on the same path: Korihor (c. 74 B.C.) was an extremist, rejecting all religious teachings. He was labeled "Anti-Christ" because he taught that there was no need for a Christ and that none would come. He described the religious teachings of the church as foolish traditions designed to subject the people to corrupt and lazy priests. In a dramatic confrontation with the Nephite chief judge, and with the prophet Alma, Korihor claimed that one cannot know anything that cannot be seen, making knowledge or prophecy of future events impossible. He ridiculed all talk of visions, dreams, and the mysteries of God. He called belief in sin, the Atonement of Christ, and the remission of sins a derangement of the mind caused by foolish religious traditions. He denied the existence of God and, after demanding a sign as proof of his existence, was struck dumb. After Alma accused him of possessing a lying spirit, Korihor confessed that he had been deceived by Satan, had taught words and doctrines pleasing to the carnal mind, and had even begun to believe them himself (Alma 30:6-60). [Korihor text comes from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.]
You may not acknowledge the reality of Satan, but one way he deceives is by overemphasizing human intellect and science, overreliance upon which are a form of unhealthy pride. He is feeding these ideas to you in his subtle ways, and you are biting on them. Humble yourself, give up on your need to know everything perfectly, refocus on what's good and right in the Church, and build on that.
Sorry this came out a little preachy, but I've known so many people who've gone this route, and I get so tired of it. Oh, and you better be damn sure you don't have any secret sins going on that would blunt your spirituality and make it impossible for you to really exercise faith. The majority of my friends who have lost their faith have eventually mentioned that they enjoy looking at porn, for example. Well, duh. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who looks at porn loses their faith or that everyone who loses their faith has looked at porn, but I think that's true more often than not, if not with porn than with some other secret sin.
Posts
34 comments:
Hey Chris:
I have to confess....the real reason that I distanced myself from the church is because I enjoy looking at porn. ;)
Doesn't surprise me, Jana. All those naked, graphic photos of flowers on your blog are practically porn.
Thanks for sharing this Chris.
Your friend of a friend sounds like a sincere honest seeker. I think he is right that, if one asks 5 believing Mormons for answers to the friend's questions, he will receive 5 (or more) answers.
My answers to his questions would track yours in places and diverge in others (no surprise, I hope).
I, like your friend's friend, believe in a Higher Power, whom I believe and worship in the LDS style. But I think this Higher Power will and does guide us, whatever our conception of God(s), as we have an open mind and open heart.
If your friend's friend feels, after considering everything he has learned and experienced, and after seeking understanding and peace through meditation (and prayer, if he still seeks understanding that way) that he should follow a different path outside of the LDS tradition and religion, then I wish him well and many blessings from God.
I do not know what God has in store for him, but I believe that as he sincerely tries to be "good" and do "good", and keeps his heart and mind open, that God will, as He promises, offer His hand and nudges at appropriate times.
And that nudge might (or might not--I cannot speak for God) include a future whispering to return to the faith of his younger years. If that happens then, your friend's friend might see it with new eyes and indeed, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, "know the [religion] for the first time."
Do you have a link to your friend's blog so I can add it to my list?
You are taking an approach that is too intellectual, not spiritual enough. Read Alma 32 carefully. First of all, you have to WANT to believe. If you don't want to believe, then all the seeming inconsistencies and holes will give you plenty of reason not to. But if you want to believe and put some effort into developing faith, then the spirit will lead you through undeniable experiences that make it so you can be patient with the earthly flaws and the seeming holes. People who believe don't expect to understand everything all at once, but they understand everything enough to give God the benefit of the doubt that troubling things will eventually be explained to our complete satisfaction.
The problem is two-fold. The simple problem is 1) if you don't desire to believe, you can't choose to desire to believe. LDS doctrine on agency remarkably oversteps the boundaries in what that agency can accomplish. Desire to believe can be affected by social environment, culture, inclinations, things like that...but someone doesn't will it out of whole cloth. *Desires* and *beliefs* are not chosen. They are unchosen conclusions, inclinations, intuitions. Now, certainly, one can choose actions, and one can certainly choose to act against his desires and beliefs, but the disconnect will bring unfulfillment and misery.
The more difficult problem is that 2) even a desire to believe doesn't necessary enable one to believe. For many, the spirit simply doesn't lead them to undeniable experiences that make it so they can be patient with earthly flaws and seeming holes. In fact, if we could start attributing things to the spirit so easily, we could say that for many, the spirit leads people to undeniable experience that makes it so they realize the earthly flaws and seeming holes for what they are: earthly flaws and seeming holes.
And yet, because of social environment, culture, etc., one can still desire to believe. In this case, the discrepancy between the desire to believe and the nonbelief is still unfulfilling and miserable. The Holy Spirit does not sustain throughout that. This is a greater hell than anything else.
What you might respond with is that it takes time. But what you've tried to argue is that the spirit leads people to undeniable experiences so that one can be patient with earthly flaws...so without these undeniable experiences, how can you expect someone to be patient, when it is the spirit that would enable them to be patient?
Alma 32:32 says that yes, if a seed groweth, it is a good seed. But if a seed groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. Alma 32 expects that the seed will grow, but the experience of many shows that it may not.
The interesting thing is that with regular matters, one doesn't even need to desire to believe something to know if it is true or not. So, the scriptures already set up a criteria that we wouldn't use anywhere else in life. Rather, in life, things are true regardless of if one believes them to be or not, and things are not true regardless of if one believes them to be or not. In real life, if one plants a living seed, then regardless of if one expects it to sprout, a living seed sprouts. Likewise, if one instead has a boiled seed, then regardless of if one desires it to sprout, the boiled seed will not.
I think if we're talking humility, then we should be humble enough to say we don't know. In this case, the agnostic's path (whether in the theistic variety or the atheistic variety) is more humble than the path of someone who claims to know.
When we acknowledge that we don't know...we then simply have to look inward and accept what is a more authentic existence. If that is an existence with a belief in God, then we are agnostic theist. If that is an existence without belief in God, then we are agnostic atheist. The individual you've responded to knows well that he must be authentic to himself, or else he will shatter his life in despair and misery.
DavidH, thanks for the very well worded note. You're a fair bit nicer than I am. I just don't think there's any good, valid excuse for someone to leave the true faith, once they've known it; it can only be due to their own flaws, not to God's "permission" to seek a different path. Because if it IS due to God's permission, THEN WHERE'S MINE??? I don't like Mormonism much and really wish it weren't true, but I'm unable to deny it.
Yes, God will be happy if this prodigal returns, but my feeling is that only 1 out of 10 prodigals return, so the odds surely aren't with my friend of a friend. He has let go of the rope, and he will receive fewer blessings as a result and will not live up to his eternal potential, let alone enjoy full realization of joy in this life. He has taken the easier road of human logic and evidence, believing only what human senses and sciences can verify. How incredibly small minded!
Christopher:
do you see how with your latest comment, it really emphasizes the role of your preexisting inclinations, beliefs, and so on, and not the external truth or falsity of those beliefs.
Consider what you have said:
I don't like Mormonism much and really wish it weren't true, but I'm unable to deny it.
This mirrors the image of nonbelievers. They may (or may not) like Mormonism much, yet they may really wish it were true (e.g., the Alma 32-ist "desire to believe"), but the only thing that matters is that they are not able to affirm it. Their inability to affirm it is quite similar to your inability to deny it.
Note that your inability to deny doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity...rather, it says everything about your perception of the truth or falsity.
In fact, let's evaluate the earlier part of this comment:
I just don't think there's any good, valid excuse for someone to leave the true faith, once they've known it; it can only be due to their own flaws, not to God's "permission" to seek a different path. Because if it IS due to God's permission, THEN WHERE'S MINE???
Well then, the emphasis really isn't on "true faith," but rather on this perception of knowledge and belief. This perception and knowledge is truly due to one's "own flaws" and is completely divorced from God. But this goes both ways. For one TO BELIEVE in the church and for one NOT TO BELIEVE in the church. Both of these are due to an individual's subjectivity...his "flaws," his personality, his mental, social, and neurological wiring.
So if someone does not come to a certain faith or loses faith, then your statement truly mirrors itself...there is no valid excuse for them to remain or join once they know; everything is due to their personal subjectivity (flaws and all).
...This pattern I've seen from your statements is very lamentable...you continue to make sentiments that you regret this...you feel "resigned" to this "unfortunate truth." You have made similar statements in hypothetical situations about sexuality and marriage.
It really is quite sad. I simply choose to believe God doesn't put you through it. You do.
Sorry, C. L. Hanson, I really don't know this fellow or whether he even has a blog. That's part of the reason why I enjoyed venting like I did; if he ever sees my words, he can't take them personally, because I don't even know him...
Thanks for the well-expressed thoughts, Andrew S. Here are some replies (I’ll break them up over several comments):
Andrew S. wrote: The problem is two-fold. The simple problem is 1) if you don't desire to believe, you can't choose to desire to believe. LDS doctrine on agency remarkably oversteps the boundaries in what that agency can accomplish. Desire to believe can be affected by social environment, culture, inclinations, things like that...but someone doesn't will it out of whole cloth. *Desires* and *beliefs* are not chosen. They are unchosen conclusions, inclinations, intuitions. Now, certainly, one can choose actions, and one can certainly choose to act against his desires and beliefs, but the disconnect will bring unfulfillment and misery.
I think a person, with enough vision and perspective, can see where their inborn desires and beliefs are not serving them well and can take steps to develop other desires and beliefs. Take a person who grew up in a family in which no one went to college. And this person doesn't like academic work himself. He sees much of it as a waste of time, he doesn't feel he's good at it, he doesn't enjoy it, he sees it as too political and elitist, he thinks it's foisted some bad attitudes and behaviors in society, etc. He has no desire to do academic work, and he doesn't personally believe in its value and efficacy.
However, as an honest seeker, he senses limitations in his natural mindset and senses a need for something better in his life, and he sees evidence that college has done some good things for other people. So he decides to go against his inborn desires and beliefs and try something different. And if he plays the academic game right and comes at it with the right mix of openness and effort, it will likely start to reward him and transform his inner desires and beliefs, even if at first he is really just experimenting. Or if not, and he can't wrap his head around it and ends up dropping out, the fault is in him far more than it is in academia, and he will not reap the benefits, and his inborn desires and beliefs will stay intact, for better or worse.
Andrew S. wrote: The more difficult problem is that 2) even a desire to believe doesn't necessary enable one to believe. For many, the spirit simply doesn't lead them to undeniable experiences that make it so they can be patient with earthly flaws and seeming holes. In fact, if we could start attributing things to the spirit so easily, we could say that for many, the spirit leads people to undeniable experience that makes it so they realize the earthly flaws and seeming holes for what they are: earthly flaws and seeming holes.
Yeah, it’s tough. Some people are given the spiritual gift to believe, and some are only given the gift to believe those who believe. Others, I suppose, have even fewer spiritual gifts in the area of faith and belief. Only God knows what each person’s potential and accountability are, and he will judge each case. However, beware of rationalization, and remember that this is a test. It’s meant to be hard, and it’s possible to fail by not being patient and humble enough on the pathway, not submitting enough as a child would to a parent, which is what our relationship with God is supposed to be like.
Andrew S. wrote: And yet, because of social environment, culture, etc., one can still desire to believe. In this case, the discrepancy between the desire to believe and the nonbelief is still unfulfilling and miserable. The Holy Spirit does not sustain throughout that. This is a greater hell than anything else.
Again, only God can judge if it’s too much hell for a person to endure or if he or she just gave up too easily or otherwise didn’t make an adjustment in attitude/approach that he could have.
Andrew S. wrote: What you might respond with is that it takes time. But what you've tried to argue is that the spirit leads people to undeniable experiences so that one can be patient with earthly flaws...so without these undeniable experiences, how can you expect someone to be patient, when it is the spirit that would enable them to be patient?
I guess it just depends on how badly a person wants to come to know God and learn his truth. Many of us find it more comfortable to put off that difficult journey and just settle into easier agnosticism or even atheism. I’m certain that God rewards faithful patience and effort with enough spiritual comfort and confirmation to keep the person on the path, unless they get too proud or impatient or lazy or otherwise allow their flaws to throw them off.
Andrew S. wrote: Alma 32:32 says that yes, if a seed groweth, it is a good seed. But if a seed groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. Alma 32 expects that the seed will grow, but the experience of many shows that it may not.
This one is very easy to rebut. In a case where the gospel seed doesn’t grow, the fault is in the soil, not the seed. In other words, the fault is in the person in which the seed will not grow. I think there may even be a bible verse or two about this in the New Testament…
Andrew S. wrote: The interesting thing is that with regular matters, one doesn't even need to desire to believe something to know if it is true or not. So, the scriptures already set up a criteria that we wouldn't use anywhere else in life. Rather, in life, things are true regardless of if one believes them to be or not, and things are not true regardless of if one believes them to be or not. In real life, if one plants a living seed, then regardless of if one expects it to sprout, a living seed sprouts. Likewise, if one instead has a boiled seed, then regardless of if one desires it to sprout, the boiled seed will not.
Yep, you definitely got that right. Religion/spirituality is a very different realm from the rest of life and the world. The tools that work in the material world, such as evidence and human logic, do not work in the religious sphere. What works there is faith and spirituality: humbling oneself before God; sincerely seeking in a way that’s completely dependent on God, not upon human science; really trying to fathom the great questions of where we came from, why we’re here, where we’re going; changing and purifying one’s life to comply with new truths as they are discovered, etc. These are all things that go against the natural man’s inclinations, which are to believe only what can be proven through human senses and sciences. That works for physical seeds but not for spiritual seeds.
Andrew S. wrote: I think if we're talking humility, then we should be humble enough to say we don't know. In this case, the agnostic's path (whether in the theistic variety or the atheistic variety) is more humble than the path of someone who claims to know.
You are talking about being humble before one's fellow humans. However, humility before God brings blessings of growing religious and spiritual insight and, yes, even certainty. God does not mean for his children to live their lives as humble agnostics; he wants them to draw as near to him as they can, and in return he will draw as near to them as he can. Not believing it's even possible to draw nearer to God than agnosticism is a self-defeating attitude that squashes faith.
Andrew S. wrote: When we acknowledge that we don't know...we then simply have to look inward and accept what is a more authentic existence. If that is an existence with a belief in God, then we are agnostic theist. If that is an existence without belief in God, then we are agnostic atheist. The individual you've responded to knows well that he must be authentic to himself, or else he will shatter his life in despair and misery.
This sounds a lot like secular humanism to me, an exaggerated belief in the importance and primacy of the human self as the ultimate authority or in a group of human selves cooperating together and relying only upon themselves. In other words, a complete lack of willingness or ability to approach God and use faith to figure what God wants us to do and how he wants us to live our lives. A little bit of agnostic "A higher power may exist, but I have no way of knowing" does not do much to dispel the deception of secular humanism. Again, it's just the same thing as what Korihor taught in the Book of Mormon, only with modern trappings and backed up with today's advanced human science, which is impressive but not perfect and in no way a replacement for God.
re Chris and the education example:
Chris, isn't it true that "vision" and "perspective" are also influenced by inborn desires, beliefs, and frameworks? So still, you don't really challenge what I am saying...you fit exactly with what I am saying.
For example, "sensing a need for something better in his life" is influenced by inborn desires, beliefs, and frameworks. A need for something better is a desire. The belief that college can do good things for him as an extrapolation for what it has done to others is a belief. You beg the question...what if someone doesn't feel a "need for something better"? What if someone does not believe in the university? You have to give a compelling reason why they should change from their status quo.
Your hypothetical example betrays you in more ways than that, however. See, let's take a look at college. There isn't one college. There isn't one true college either. There isn't one major. There isn't one true major either. No one would assert that someone should go to one college and do one field of study. Instead, what nearly everyone asserts is that one should go to the college that best fits him or her and study something that he or she enjoys, because anything else will lead to a long term commitment to misery (and lots of student loans). The assumption is that out of thousands of colleges and thousands of fields of study (even those as of yet undiscovered), something will appeal.
So, we don't assume that the individual will "transform" his inner beliefs at all...rather, we assume that the individual will discover his niche. His desired field of study (here comes those internal inclinations), his desired school, his desired system of learning, and so on.
So, if we compare this analogy back to the church, let's make the church a university. Why should anyone hold the church as the "one true university" when we wouldn't use this language in our analogies? Why say that the gospel is the "one true major," when we wouldn't use this language in our analogy? However, what you say about "sensing a need for something better" (which is internal) and pursuing something better is something logical. If you don't like engineering, no one says you should force yourself to be an engineer, or that if you study something else, then "the fault is with you more than it is with engineering." So, if the gospel isn't doing it for something, if we are to use your analogy, we should conclude similarly.
re Chris about the spiritual gifts:
I guess then, if you are confident, then you should really leave it to God. I think I will too.
Part of this relationship requires respect. And I think one example of respect is paying so much respect to what God means not to attribute shoddy work that he did not do to him. So, out of humility, out of respect, out of decency, I don't attribute this universe to a god. To do so would be the greatest disrespect. I don't attribute to him a fallible church with fallible leaders...especially when sourcing it to humans works much better (as even members will concede).
If it so happens that the entirety of reality isn't "good enough" for God, then so be it. Out of respect, I will not attribute any of reality to God.
On the other hand...I don't know why, but the message I get from you is this...resignation...as I have said...it's like you want to attribute this "toughness," this "difficulty," this "un-idealness, all of these lamentable things to God. I don't know why. I don't know why you insult God. Why would you speak about him in terms that would imply to others that he isn't all that great?
re Chris:
I guess it just depends on how badly a person wants to come to know God and learn his truth. Many of us find it more comfortable to put off that difficult journey and just settle into easier agnosticism or even atheism. I’m certain that God rewards faithful patience and effort with enough spiritual comfort and confirmation to keep the person on the path, unless they get too proud or impatient or lazy or otherwise allow their flaws to throw them off.
I think some people (atheists and agnostics) want to know God with such intensity that they aren't satisfied with definitions and explanations that are beneath God. They aren't satisfied with stale packages.
I think that God would reward this...this searching without stopping...this refusal to be complacent...I think that God would reward this.
I guess we simply fundamentally disagree on what an agnostic or an atheist is in relation to a theist. Because it seems to me that what you describe about "pride" and "impatience" and "laziness" and all these things describe theists...they are proud of this gospel that they have. They are impatient with finding out things as they really are, so they jump on to whatever package they find. They are lazy, so they will not re-evaluate and scrutinize the value of the package they've received.
On the other hand, the atheist and the agnostic must be humble. Because they are going against the current, and they face challenge at every turn. The atheist and agnostic must be patient, because things aren't handed to them on a platter. They must be active, because they are the ones searching, reaching, climbing, hiking through this intense journey.
Andrew S. wrote: Do you see how with your latest comment, it really emphasizes the role of your preexisting inclinations, beliefs, and so on, and not the external truth or falsity of those beliefs.
I can see why you'd say that. I'm venting as much as trying to build a real case for my position. I have not shared how I personally broke through into the spiritual realm and discovered the reality of Satan and God. But I've definitely been on a journey too that involved testing and experimenting and learning, and I was once spiritually asleep or blind. I think that's the underlying problem with my friend of a friend; he's probably just spiritually asleep, for whatever reason, hasn't had enough real spiritual experience to know the difference between that and emotion. And maybe it's not even his fault; maybe he needs to leave the faith and go through a journey of doubt before he discovers spiritual reality. I know I did; my first real spiritual encounter was with Satan, actually, at a time when I was trying to return from prodigality because I was fearful that my path in life might end in disaster (real disaster, not spiritual; as in drug overdose or disease or something).
Andrew S. wrote: Consider what you have said: "I don't like Mormonism much and really wish it weren't true, but I'm unable to deny it." This mirrors the image of nonbelievers. They may (or may not) like Mormonism much, yet they may really wish it were true (e.g., the Alma 32-ist "desire to believe"), but the only thing that matters is that they are not able to affirm it. Their inability to affirm it is quite similar to your inability to deny it.
Interesting point, and makes logical sense in the way you've presented it. But my argument would be that their "inability to affirm it" is not an end destination but a temporary state of tension that they need to keep working on, if they want to progress. Being unable to deny Mormonism is more of an end destination, a positive result, not a negative.
Andrew S. wrote: Note that your inability to deny doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity...rather, it says everything about your perception of the truth or falsity.
Fair enough. What authority do I have to say that because I can't deny it, that makes it true for everyone else too? But that's how I believe, and of course I have many, many others who have borne similar testimony to back me up, so I'm not just a lone voice on this.
Andrew S. wrote: In fact, let's evaluate the earlier part of this comment:
I just don't think there's any good, valid excuse for someone to leave the true faith, once they've known it; it can only be due to their own flaws, not to God's "permission" to seek a different path. Because if it IS due to God's permission, THEN WHERE'S MINE???
Well then, the emphasis really isn't on "true faith," but rather on this perception of knowledge and belief. This perception and knowledge is truly due to one's "own flaws" and is completely divorced from God. But this goes both ways. For one TO BELIEVE in the church and for one NOT TO BELIEVE in the church. Both of these are due to an individual's subjectivity...his "flaws," his personality, his mental, social, and neurological wiring.
No, that's Korihor talking. All God's children are inherently wired deep down to seek God's truth and want to return to him. However, worldly deceptions and temptations and other flawed forces cloud that and give each child challenges to overcome to get back to his "true" wiring as a child of God.
This pattern I've seen from your statements is very lamentable...you continue to make sentiments that you regret this...you feel "resigned" to this "unfortunate truth." You have made similar statements in hypothetical situations about sexuality and marriage.
Dude, I just don't like Mormon culture. I don't like the white shirts and ties and the music and more superficial stuff like that. I also don't love the hard work of things like fasting and reading scriptures, but I know it's good for me, just like doing the treadmill is for my body.
As far as when you say, "You have made similar statements in hypothetical situations about sexuality and marriage," I honestly don't know what you mean. Are you talking about gay marriage? And if so, how does what I've said on that apply to the present discussion?
It really is quite sad. I simply choose to believe God doesn't put you through it. You do.
Oh, I think God definitely puts us through trials and guides us to experience difficult things that will make us stronger. If you believe in God, do you just see him as the watchmaker who made everything and then walked away, letting everything just take a natural course? If so, that's not quite as misguided as Korihor, but close...
re Chris:
You are talking about being humble before one's fellow humans. However, humility before God brings blessings of growing religious and spiritual insight and, yes, even certainty. God does not mean for his children to live their lives as humble agnostics; he wants them to draw as near to him as they can, and in return he will draw as near to them as he can. Not believing it's even possible to draw nearer to God than agnosticism is a self-defeating attitude that squashes faith.
In which case, to draw near to God must be to move away from false packages. Even if those false packages are the "traditional" ideas of God and divinity. Again, I believe that atheism and agnosticism are still inherently humble before God.
This sounds a lot like secular humanism to me, an exaggerated belief in the importance and primacy of the human self as the ultimate authority or in a group of human selves cooperating together and relying only upon themselves. In other words, a complete lack of willingness or ability to approach God and use faith to figure what God wants us to do and how he wants us to live our lives. A little bit of agnostic "A higher power may exist, but I have no way of knowing" does not do much to dispel the deception of secular humanism. Again, it's just the same thing as what Korihor taught in the Book of Mormon, only with modern trappings and backed up with today's advanced human science, which is impressive but not perfect and in no way a replacement for God.
Actually, not at all like secular humanism. Rather, it is simply authentic humanity. For example, we don't have to "exaggerate belief in the importance of humanity" (so I guess that breaks the humanism) to recognize that we are invaluable to each other.
Again, it's not a "complete lack of willingness or ability to approach God" either. Remember, you are confusing your package of God with God. If someone does not also idolize your package, this is not their inability to approach God. This is their ultimate sign of respect to God by flatly rejecting false idols.
I think someone who rejects false idols is much more willing and able to approach God than one who accepts an idol and claims it is the true God. But again, this is a point of fundamental disagreement.
I gotta wind this down now, Andrew S. But here's a last few thoughts:
I guess then, if you are confident, then you should really leave it to God. I think I will too.
Part of this relationship requires respect. And I think one example of respect is paying so much respect to what God means not to attribute shoddy work that he did not do to him. So, out of humility, out of respect, out of decency, I don't attribute this universe to a god. To do so would be the greatest disrespect. I don't attribute to him a fallible church with fallible leaders...especially when sourcing it to humans works much better (as even members will concede).
If it so happens that the entirety of reality isn't "good enough" for God, then so be it. Out of respect, I will not attribute any of reality to God.
You're making my head spin. You have just described a God that I cannot comprehend, who seems to have no connection with us or our universe or this reality. Sorry, don't buy it.
On the other hand...I don't know why, but the message I get from you is this...resignation...as I have said...it's like you want to attribute this "toughness," this "difficulty," this "un-idealness, all of these lamentable things to God. I don't know why. I don't know why you insult God. Why would you speak about him in terms that would imply to others that he isn't all that great?
You know, I don't even know if you're Mormon or former Mormon or not at all connected to Mormonism. From a Mormon perspective, God has allowed us to come to this fallen world to undergo a test, and I'm simply not always thrilled with the test; and yes, sometimes the LDS Church itself and the culture surrounding it are part of that test.
Oh, and by the way, Andrew S., your hijacking of my college metaphor was over the top and quite hilarious. I suppose if this were a real wrestling match or debate, you would have pinned me with that one. Of course, I would never take the analogy anywhere near that far!
re Chris:
I can see why you'd say that. I'm venting as much as trying to build a real case for my position. I have not shared how I personally broke through into the spiritual realm and discovered the reality of Satan and God.
Chris, Chris, don't you realize that all idolaters say this? "I have not shared how I personally broke through into the spiritual realm and discovered the reality of Athena/Vishnu/Thor/etc.," (sorry to my pagan and Hindu friends who may be reading)? Again, these people are speaking about preexisting inclinations, beliefs, and so on, and not about the external true or validity of these beliefs. If we are impatient and if we are proud, we might just assume our preexisting inclinations and beliefs are externally true...but I guess, what was it you were saying...shouldn't we be trying to humble ourselves? Especially before God?
But I've definitely been on a journey too that involved testing and experimenting and learning, and I was once spiritually asleep or blind. I think that's the underlying problem with my friend of a friend; he's probably just spiritually asleep, for whatever reason, hasn't had enough real spiritual experience to know the difference between that and emotion. And maybe it's not even his fault; maybe he needs to leave the faith and go through a journey of doubt before he discovers spiritual reality. I know I did; my first real spiritual encounter was with Satan, actually, at a time when I was trying to return from prodigality because I was fearful that my path in life might end in disaster (real disaster, not spiritual; as in drug overdose or disease or something).
More pride and judgment! So your friend is spiritually asleep. But you, no, can't be. You've had the real deal! You're not spiritually asleep anymore!
Do you ever have dreams within dreams...so that when you wake up from one, you are still in the other? and you don't even realize until you wake up again (or maybe even five times later) and you're awake for "good"? Who's to say you aren't in a false awakening (other than pride in your belief that you see "spiritual reality?")
Interesting point, and makes logical sense in the way you've presented it. But my argument would be that their "inability to affirm it" is not an end destination but a temporary state of tension that they need to keep working on, if they want to progress. Being unable to deny Mormonism is more of an end destination, a positive result, not a negative.
At the same time, I could say the same exact thing to you (this really is how the logic works...it works both ways you want it). "Your "inability to deny it" is not an end destination but a temporary state of tension that you need to keep working on, if you want to progress. Being unable to accept Mormonism is more of an end destination, a positive result, not a negative."
Again, it's just a fundamental difference. You believe you are "spiritually awake." Others would disagree. But with confidence (and say, pride?) in your position, you don't need to care about what these others say...because you are spiritually awake and see spiritual reality!
Where does this fundamental difference come from? I would say that it comes from our personal inclinations, interpretations, frameworks, beliefs, and desires. We don't know the reality of the situation (so we should be agnostic), but we simply believe in the myths and frameworks and subjective interpretations that we put together. I would think it is much more humble to recognize that these are subjective interpretations -- not representative of what reality may actually be -- instead of insisting that our interpretations are correct and all else are "spiritually asleep" (or whatever other term.)
You're making my head spin. You have just described a God that I cannot comprehend, who seems to have no connection with us or our universe or this reality. Sorry, don't buy it.
Ah, but isn't this the point! when you hear this, something goes off in your interpretive frameworks...in your belief system, in your way of comprehending the universe and reality. Your head spins. And what do you do in conclusion:
You don't buy it.
I do not blame you for taking this conclusion. I simply would ask you to recognize a few things: 1) the fact that this makes your head spin says nothing about its truth or falsity. 2) HOWEVER, the fact that this makes your head spin gives you perfect justification not to believe it. This is regardless of if it, in fact, is true or not. 3) This doesn't just apply to this formulation of "God." This can, at any time, apply to anyone with any given formulation of God. And I would imagine that it does. Your acceptance of Mormonism implies the non-acceptance of several other deity systems...because they don't make sense...they don't seem to have any connection with the universe that you sense. And yet, for your rejection, there are plenty of other people who think it makes perfect sense, and that your Mormon framework is the one that makes no sense with the universe and reality.
I would think, then, that it would be important to realize that people are coming from this from different angles. In the same way some things "make your head spin" and seem so utterly disconnected from this universe or from reality to you, in the same way, the same could be true of your beliefs.
You know, I don't even know if you're Mormon or former Mormon or not at all connected to Mormonism. From a Mormon perspective, God has allowed us to come to this fallen world to undergo a test, and I'm simply not always thrilled with the test; and yes, sometimes the LDS Church itself and the culture surrounding it are part of that test.
And this formulation may seem like something that "cannot be comprehended" and which has no connection to "this universe or reality." Someone may "not buy it."
re Chris:
Oh, and by the way, Andrew S., your hijacking of my college metaphor was over the top and quite hilarious. I suppose if this were a real wrestling match or debate, you would have pinned me with that one. Of course, I would never take the analogy anywhere near that far!
That really is the risk with metaphors. Very often, they don't really fit in ways that you want them to fit.
I think that that reworking of the metaphor makes a lot of sense, though, in telling what you really have to deal with. I mean, we could go further...most people even recognize that even if you don't go to university, there are ways to better your life. So, I mean, there are just *so many more options*.
Andrew S. wrote: I think some people (atheists and agnostics) want to know God with such intensity that they aren't satisfied with definitions and explanations that are beneath God. They aren't satisfied with stale packages.
What if God is the one who supplied the "package" (or religion) as the best overall tool for his children to draw nearer to him? I agree it can be a bit stale or too lowest-common-denominator for my taste, but it puts everyone on a level playing field.
I think that God would reward this...this searching without stopping...this refusal to be complacent...I think that God would reward this.
To a point, I think he would too. But it can be a form of intellectual pride to never be satisfied with answers or "packages" and to always keep searching. That's a good way to find oneself stuck down a forbidden pathway. And of course Mormons who are certain about their religion and have accepted the package still have to search in other areas, such as career, parenting, health, and so many other facets of life. But it's certainly possible to find a spiritual path rather than always thrashing through the wilderness without God's help because the person for some reason can't accept that help, in the form of a path or a package or whatever.
I guess we simply fundamentally disagree on what an agnostic or an atheist is in relation to a theist. Because it seems to me that what you describe about "pride" and "impatience" and "laziness" and all these things describe theists...they are proud of this gospel that they have. They are impatient with finding out things as they really are, so they jump on to whatever package they find. They are lazy, so they will not re-evaluate and scrutinize the value of the package they've received.
Well put. These are pitfalls for believers too. Again, it's possible to become certain, though, that a particular package is the right one from God. I think it's a strange mindset to think God can't provide a package and that people must always scrabble on their own spiritually and religiously. I don't think God is such a negligent parent to leave us in that state for our whole lives...
On the other hand, the atheist and the agnostic must be humble. Because they are going against the current, and they face challenge at every turn. The atheist and agnostic must be patient, because things aren't handed to them on a platter. They must be active, because they are the ones searching, reaching, climbing, hiking through this intense journey.
Sounds like they are high maintenance to me and making things MUCH more difficult than they need to be. Maybe it's even a sort of spiritual attention deficit disorder, never satisfied but always looking for more stimulation. I do admire many of the traits that lead a person to this harder-seeming route, but I think God's plan for us is to get us onto the gospel path so that we can then help others and fulfill other purposes, not spend all our energy on a lifetime of breaking our own new spiritual/religious pathway.
Andrew S. wrote: Chris, Chris, don't you realize that all idolaters say this? "I have not shared how I personally broke through into the spiritual realm and discovered the reality of Athena/Vishnu/Thor/etc.," (sorry to my pagan and Hindu friends who may be reading)? Again, these people are speaking about preexisting inclinations, beliefs, and so on, and not about the external true or validity of these beliefs. If we are impatient and if we are proud, we might just assume our preexisting inclinations and beliefs are externally true...but I guess, what was it you were saying...shouldn't we be trying to humble ourselves? Especially before God?
Um, no, I'm talking about encounters with real powers and personages that exist outside myself. Those other gods you mentioned are fictional creations.
More pride and judgment! So your friend is spiritually asleep. But you, no, can't be. You've had the real deal! You're not spiritually asleep anymore!
Correct. I'm not saying I'm always or even often in spiritual tune in my daily life, but I've seen the real spiritual sphere, and I know it exists, and I don't think my friend of a friend has, or he wouldn't be able to dismiss it like he has. And yeah, I'm sure I'm not free of pride in my own position...
Do you ever have dreams within dreams...so that when you wake up from one, you are still in the other? and you don't even realize until you wake up again (or maybe even five times later) and you're awake for "good"? Who's to say you aren't in a false awakening (other than pride in your belief that you see "spiritual reality?")
This doesn't happen now that I don't smoke pot anymore, and I don't think it ever would happen unless I took up hallucinogenic drugs again.
At the same time, I could say the same exact thing to you (this really is how the logic works...it works both ways you want it). "Your "inability to deny it" is not an end destination but a temporary state of tension that you need to keep working on, if you want to progress. Being unable to accept Mormonism is more of an end destination, a positive result, not a negative."
Again, it's just a fundamental difference. You believe you are "spiritually awake." Others would disagree. But with confidence (and say, pride?) in your position, you don't need to care about what these others say...because you are spiritually awake and see spiritual reality!
Correct, people who have not experienced spiritual reality don't fully know what they're talking about yet. I'm talking about the reality of Satan, God, Jesus, angels, etc. I suppose you could call it a form of pride that I know what I have seen with my own spiritual eyes, and I'm just as certain about it as a person is certain about what he can and can't see with his physical eyes.
Where does this fundamental difference come from? I would say that it comes from our personal inclinations, interpretations, frameworks, beliefs, and desires. We don't know the reality of the situation (so we should be agnostic), but we simply believe in the myths and frameworks and subjective interpretations that we put together. I would think it is much more humble to recognize that these are subjective interpretations -- not representative of what reality may actually be -- instead of insisting that our interpretations are correct and all else are "spiritually asleep" (or whatever other term.)
Again, this just flat out denies the ability of God to reach out and touch us with knowledge. By this viewpoint, we are all alone in the universe, with no God to help. I know otherwise, and it's from actual spiritual experience and proof and logic, not just from my "personal inclinations, interpretations, frameworks, beliefs, and desires," although those played a role in getting me to the point where I encountered spiritual reality.
What if God is the one who supplied the "package" (or religion) as the best overall tool for his children to draw nearer to him? I agree it can be a bit stale or too lowest-common-denominator for my taste, but it puts everyone on a level playing field.
Some people will have "spiritual experiences" and conclude that Islam is the religion that God placed on the earth as the tool for people to draw near from. Others will decide Hinduism. Others paganism. And so on for the thousands and millions of the religions out there.
Really, it makes more sense to say that even if God is saying something, no one is paying any attention to what God is saying in this calculation. This is the unknown. Rather, people are running to what makes sense in their head. They are running away from what you said earlier: what "makes their head spin" and what they "don't buy."
To a point, I think he would too. But it can be a form of intellectual pride to never be satisfied with answers or "packages" and to always keep searching. That's a good way to find oneself stuck down a forbidden pathway. And of course Mormons who are certain about their religion and have accepted the package still have to search in other areas, such as career, parenting, health, and so many other facets of life. But it's certainly possible to find a spiritual path rather than always thrashing through the wilderness without God's help because the person for some reason can't accept that help, in the form of a path or a package or whatever.
"can be" sounds like a difference of opinions you recognize that depends on your framework, internal inclinations, and pre-existing beliefs that you bring to the table. So, you believe that this "never being satisfied" is pride. Others would say it is "patience" and "enduring to the end." Our mileage will obviously vary.
You imagine that non-Mormons (or rather, atheists and agnostics in partiular) are all "thrashing through the wilderness without God's help". But what if they are moving peacefully and calmly even moreso than you are (after all, you are being tested, and you repeatedly comment about how you lament this testing, this "difficulty," this "toughness," this "tension". You haven't denied it.)
Remember...the difference between internal inclinations, frameworks, etc., and the reality. Since we don't know the reality, it could certainly be that people who think they are on a path are in the wilderness...
re Chris:
Well put. These are pitfalls for believers too. Again, it's possible to become certain, though, that a particular package is the right one from God. I think it's a strange mindset to think God can't provide a package and that people must always scrabble on their own spiritually and religiously. I don't think God is such a negligent parent to leave us in that state for our whole lives...
I think certainty is the huge component of pride, but we could get into a huge discussion on that. The thing is that when we are evaluating these packages, we are using terribly long logic chains. For example, we don't have direct chain one-to-one chain of us-to-God. Rather, we have this logic chain: "prayers are a valid way to come into communication with God." (or whatever our chain features). And the we have more things in the chain (this is a spiritual experience...this is not. This is an answer to a prayer, this is not.) And every point in the chain raises uncertainty.
Humility is to say, "I don't know...but this is what I believe." When we start saying, "Oh, I am certain," that's dangerous territory.
I don't think the mindset is that God can't provide a package. It's that there is little reason to believe there is a package, based on the ones we are evaluating. There is little reason to attribute uncertain, iffy, questionable things to God. If that means we don't attribute anything, then that is the way we glorify God.
Again, if you believe that attributing reality to God would expose him to be a "negligent parent," then don't attribute reality to God. But you can't suddenly change reality.
Sounds like they are high maintenance to me and making things MUCH more difficult than they need to be. Maybe it's even a sort of spiritual attention deficit disorder, never satisfied but always looking for more stimulation. I do admire many of the traits that lead a person to this harder-seeming route, but I think God's plan for us is to get us onto the gospel path so that we can then help others and fulfill other purposes, not spend all our energy on a lifetime of breaking our own new spiritual/religious pathway.
Chris, you really need to get your story straight. Sometimes, you say atheism/agnosticism is the "easy way." Now you want to say it's "much more difficult than it needs to be." Are you confused on this issue?
Since it seems like you're uncertain (if not confused), I don't know why you want to make all kinds of explanations. "Maybe it's even a sort of spiritual attention deficit disorder," you say...you haven't even fully grasped agnosticism or atheism yet...how are you going to start speaking about its pathologies and comorbidities?
I think the agnostic and the atheist also believe in helping others and fulfilling other purposes...so I guess they would agree with you. They would disagree that your gospel package is the way to do it. They would say that your gospel package doesn't help others or fulfill other purposes, but instead spends all energy on a lifetime of checking boxes, filling blanks, not searching, not seeking, but being complacent with these blanks.
In fact...Jesus talked about this kind of life...it was what the Pharisees were doing...
will get to your final message later (maybe tomorrow), but by then you'll probably have addressed the others, so just letting you know; I haven't disappeared!
Great conversation, Andrew S. I'm out now, as it's taking too much time. Good luck to you, and thanks for taking the time and provoking some great thoughts.
OK, I'm back (momentarily)
re: real powers and personages
This is really the precipice of egocentric spiritual pride...if you can't realize this, I don't know what to say.
EVERY spiritual person says they are talking about encounters with real powers and personages that exist outside themselves. And most of them are just as bold and overconfident to say the others powers others claim are fictional creations.
re: spiritual in-tunedness and dismissal
You have this proud confidence in this spiritual sphere; you insist you know and your friend doesn't. How do you know you know and your friend doesn't? Because "if your friend knew, he wouldn't dismiss it."
But don't you know that EVERY other religious person would say the same thing about you? "If you really knew Christ, you wouldn't be Mormon..." "If you really knew Allah, you would be Muslim and wouldn't enjoin to Allah what belongs to Allah alone..." "If you really knew xxx, you wouldn't deny the spiritual reality of xxx."
Clearly, everyone (including you) is just saying what they are personally inclined to believe, and then they have the outstanding pride to say that this is reality. Why will you allow yourself to fit into this same category?
This doesn't happen now that I don't smoke pot anymore, and I don't think it ever would happen unless I took up hallucinogenic drugs again.
You really think that you can't have neurological and mental irregularities without drugs? Do you not realize we go into different states of consciousness every day of our lives. Some routine activities are very good at "priming" us for "compromised" states of consciousness. Drugs simply are the media darling.
re: spiritual reality, spiritual eyes
So again, I just reverse the argument on you. You say people who don't understand spiritual reality don't know what they are talking about. But you haven't established that you do know what spiritual reality is. You have pride that you do and will not be humbled. But this pride could in fact be exactly what makes you misunderstand spiritual reality. In this case, what you say would apply to you! You would not know what you're talking about!
But it doesn't stop you, kinda like it doesn't stop most people. People will continue to believe in (and be overbearingly confident in) what they have seen with their own "spiritual eye" -- even though people won't evaluate -- with their physical eyes, ears, hands, etc., -- that EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SEEING DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THESE SPIRITUAL EYES.
re: the ability of God to reach out and touch us with knowledge
Again, no it doesn't deny any such thing about God. It simply shows your uncreativity to comprehend the ways God could touch us with knowledge. But you've already conceded this. It "makes your head spin." So you "don't buy it."
The fact is the personality, desires, frameworks, interpretations, played a role in getting you where you are, and now you deny them! Now you forsake them. These things, which according to scripture, God knitted you in the womb with, you forsake. You insult God and cripple him! You make against him an idol, insisting that he can only zig because you "can't comprehend" him zagging.
Consider what FREE WILL is. Free will is a way for God to reach out and touch us with knowledge while being hands off. How? Because we have these experiences...and from these experiences and the consequences, we LEARN. We improve and SEEK to improve based on our frameworks, beliefs, etc., (where did those come from?)
Thank you Andrew S. for your very insightful comments. Helped very much! [thumbs up]
I agree that emotion and spiritual influence are difficult to separate. But that doesn't mean that sometimes the spirit doesn't actually speak to people, beyond their own emotions. You are discounting all of it just because lots of it may be faulty. We call that throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I don't think I generally agree with your rebuttal here. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't always such a bad thing to do. An example (from an LDS perspective) would be to avoid watching ALL rated-R movies, even though there might be a couple that are quite good. Now I know some LDS do bend the rules but many LDS that I know personally wouldn't object to throwing out the baby with the bathwater in regards to rated-R movies. It's a simple rule for them: just don't see rated-R movies. (Now this is just a simplistic example...so, let me explain my position further....)
The problem with 'spiritual' experiences is that there isn't evidence available to test whether they actually happen... I mean that an outside 'Holy Ghost' is the one that is causing the person to feel feelings. So it is not reasonable to assume that somebody who is claiming that a Holy Ghost is filling them with feelings is telling the truth. Because of this lack of evidence, it is reasonable to look for an explanation that is based on evidence - Confirmation Bias. Confirmation Bias has been shown to be 'fact' by numerous scientific experiments. Now that we have an explanation bolstered by evidence, it is safe to reject 'supernatural' explanations that aren't based on any evidence at all.
Your friend of a friend is rejecting extraordinary claims that do not have evidence to support them. It is safe and reasonable to reject a claim that does not have evidence to support it.
Do you not reject all water dowsers? Or do you think that there could be some water dowser out there who is telling the truth? And why would you believe them without any verifiable evidence?
Let me amend my comment. I just wanted to say that Confirmation bias isn't the only scientific explanation for 'feeling the spirit.'
Post a Comment