High-demand religions, faith crises, and the tools to fix them

[dzheremi]

There's a YouTube channel I've been watching recently that is an ex-Mormon's thoughts on faith, epistemology, etc., and I've recently stumbled upon this article on his accompanying blog: Fix your faith crisis with this one weird trick!

The title is meant to sound like an infommercial (for the sake of pulling off a cheesy joke at the end), but the content itself is pretty good, I think. He goes through what a crisis of faith is, how the religion it is occurring within shapes it, a few different ways to fix/deal with it, and the tools a person might have to deal with their own crisis of faith.

The article itself is pretty long, but I thought it'd be interesting to highlight a few of the definitions from it and see how people here think their own tradition or religion may or may not fit those definitions or situations he is describing. One of the reasons why I like this article is that even though it is written by an ex-Mormon (so no doubt he has his own former religion in mind when writing this), it is not written about Mormonism in particular, but instead in a way that can fit any religion or sect. So even I as a Coptic Orthodox, not Mormon, person can get something out of it, because what he writes can fit any religious background.

Anyway, on the concept of "high-demand religion", which is a kind of religion or an approach to religion that is more likely to cause sustained crises of faith, he gives the following characteristics of such a religion:

• The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth
• Members are God’s elect people
• Theology provides an exclusive path to salvation
• Teachings provide a high degree of direction in how members are to view the world, live their life, and interact with others
• Special knowledge about metaphysical things such as the purpose of life, nature of God, and the afterlife

To overcome faith crises, a person may develop or be given (by their religion or people in it) ways of overcoming doubt that work to silence or cover the doubt without dealing with the content of what produced it (i.e., disturbing, contradictory, unflattering, or other types of faith-harming information). These may include the following ideas/directions:

• It’s not important for your salvation, don’t think about it anymore”
• “We weren’t there at the time so we can’t judge the actions of our founder and early leaders”
• “We can’t judge behavior in the past by today’s standards. Things which seem wrong today weren’t so bad back then”
• “If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong”
• “We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith”
• “That is a mystery which God uses to test our faith.”
• “You should be more concerned about doing what we tell you is right, than asking questions which tear down faith”
• “Our leader was only speaking as a man when he said that troubling or incorrect thing. You can trust what he says when he is speaking as our leader”
• “You cannot trust anything that is not published by our own official sources”
• “Your personal failure to keep our rules has led you to doubt. Start focusing on fixing yourself rather than tearing down our faith”
• “The answer to some questions are too precious or sacred to be given at this time”
• “If you pray harder and read more of our official publications, then you will understand. Your doubts are proof that you haven’t studied enough”
• “It’s okay to have these questions, but you should never share them with anyone else – just your leaders in private. You should trust the judgement of your leaders over your own”
• “Don’t listen to ex-members of our faith. They are evil”
• “You previously believed that this was true – you should trust that feeling and stop questioning it”

A person may instead (or even also) develop or be given means to deal with doubt that are not like the above, but instead encourage free inquiry from a variety of sources and standpoints so that the person may reach the truth in a way that does not cover doubt, but addresses it head on. These may include the following ideas/directions:

• “Look at any and all information you can find from both official and unofficial sources”
• “Talk to anyone about your questions and evaluate all answers”
• “Find out what other people who have had the same questions say – both current and former members”
• “Trust your own moral compass for what is right and wrong”
• “Allow yourself to follow your conclusion, even if it means rejecting something that you previously thought was true”

My question to all of you concerning your religion, tradition, or sect: Which of these do you feel apply to you and your own/your church's own way of dealing with faith crises (or for that matter producing them to begin with), and in what way do they do so/do not do so?

I figure we talk so much about epistemology and proof/evidence here, we ought to be able to take a critical look at our own faiths too, using this kind of schema that does not privilege one tradition over another. (I take it as a given that everyone believes that they are where they need to be, faith-wise, or else they'd conceivably be somewhere else. So the point is not to call people out on what is false in their own religion according to someone else's view of it, but to see how well-equipped we are by our respective traditions and communities to deal with crises of faith that come as a result of living in a world where not everyone is going to agree that your faith is as perfect or great as you think it is, and sometimes it might not even seem that great to you, either.)

 

[SkyWriting]

• “Look at any and all information you can find from both official and unofficial sources”
• “Talk to anyone about your questions and evaluate all answers”
• “Find out what other people who have had the same questions say – both current and former members”
• “Trust your own moral compass for what is right and wrong”
• “Allow yourself to follow your conclusion, even if it means rejecting something that you previously thought was true”

... Which of these do you feel apply to you and your own/your church's own way of dealing .

This describes my home church. It had very little impact on my
Christian conversion but is closer to my current philosophy none the less.

 

[ananda]

There's a YouTube channel I've been watching recently that is an ex-Mormon's thoughts on faith, epistemology, etc., and I've recently stumbled upon this article on his accompanying blog: Fix your faith crisis with this one weird trick!

The title is meant to sound like an infommercial (for the sake of pulling off a cheesy joke at the end), but the content itself is pretty good, I think. He goes through what a crisis of faith is, how the religion it is occurring within shapes it, a few different ways to fix/deal with it, and the tools a person might have to deal with their own crisis of faith.

The article itself is pretty long, but I thought it'd be interesting to highlight a few of the definitions from it and see how people here think their own tradition or religion may or may not fit those definitions or situations he is describing. One of the reasons why I like this article is that even though it is written by an ex-Mormon (so no doubt he has his own former religion in mind when writing this), it is not written about Mormonism in particular, but instead in a way that can fit any religion or sect. So even I as a Coptic Orthodox, not Mormon, person can get something out of it, because what he writes can fit any religious background.

Anyway, on the concept of "high-demand religion", which is a kind of religion or an approach to religion that is more likely to cause sustained crises of faith, he gives the following characteristics of such a religion:

• The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth
• Members are God’s elect people
• Theology provides an exclusive path to salvation
• Teachings provide a high degree of direction in how members are to view the world, live their life, and interact with others
• Special knowledge about metaphysical things such as the purpose of life, nature of God, and the afterlife

To overcome faith crises, a person may develop or be given (by their religion or people in it) ways of overcoming doubt that work to silence or cover the doubt without dealing with the content of what produced it (i.e., disturbing, contradictory, unflattering, or other types of faith-harming information). These may include the following ideas/directions:

• It’s not important for your salvation, don’t think about it anymore”
• “We weren’t there at the time so we can’t judge the actions of our founder and early leaders”
• “We can’t judge behavior in the past by today’s standards. Things which seem wrong today weren’t so bad back then”
• “If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong”
• “We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith”
• “That is a mystery which God uses to test our faith.”
• “You should be more concerned about doing what we tell you is right, than asking questions which tear down faith”
• “Our leader was only speaking as a man when he said that troubling or incorrect thing. You can trust what he says when he is speaking as our leader”
• “You cannot trust anything that is not published by our own official sources”
• “Your personal failure to keep our rules has led you to doubt. Start focusing on fixing yourself rather than tearing down our faith”
• “The answer to some questions are too precious or sacred to be given at this time”
• “If you pray harder and read more of our official publications, then you will understand. Your doubts are proof that you haven’t studied enough”
• “It’s okay to have these questions, but you should never share them with anyone else – just your leaders in private. You should trust the judgement of your leaders over your own”
• “Don’t listen to ex-members of our faith. They are evil”
• “You previously believed that this was true – you should trust that feeling and stop questioning it”

A person may instead (or even also) develop or be given means to deal with doubt that are not like the above, but instead encourage free inquiry from a variety of sources and standpoints so that the person may reach the truth in a way that does not cover doubt, but addresses it head on. These may include the following ideas/directions:

• “Look at any and all information you can find from both official and unofficial sources”
• “Talk to anyone about your questions and evaluate all answers”
• “Find out what other people who have had the same questions say – both current and former members”
• “Trust your own moral compass for what is right and wrong”
• “Allow yourself to follow your conclusion, even if it means rejecting something that you previously thought was true”

My question to all of you concerning your religion, tradition, or sect: Which of these do you feel apply to you and your own/your church's own way of dealing with faith crises (or for that matter producing them to begin with), and in what way do they do so/do not do so?

I figure we talk so much about epistemology and proof/evidence here, we ought to be able to take a critical look at our own faiths too, using this kind of schema that does not privilege one tradition over another. (I take it as a given that everyone believes that they are where they need to be, faith-wise, or else they'd conceivably be somewhere else. So the point is not to call people out on what is false in their own religion according to someone else's view of it, but to see how well-equipped we are by our respective traditions and communities to deal with crises of faith that come as a result of living in a world where not everyone is going to agree that your faith is as perfect or great as you think it is, and sometimes it might not even seem that great to you, either.)

Much of what you wrote reflected my former crises of faith, when I was in Christianity. I've also encountered many of the tools and questions you proposed, but none of them really satisfied me by definitively answer any questions for me, in the end. Ultimately, my main, unanswered concern hinged on the idea that I could not verify any of Christianity's claims for myself.

Which is why I eventually turned to Buddhism It gave me "answers to [my] questions which have the power to discern truth from error."

 

[dzheremi]

I'll give a thorough answer, since this thread was my idea.

First, are we (the COC) 'high demand'?

• The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth -- No, I haven't heard this from anyone. If anything, what I have heard from many people is about a need to return to the traditional conciliar model of Church governance in the Coptic Orthodox Church precisely because no leader is meant to be regarded as being the sole source of truth in himself. During the reign of HH Pope Shenouda III (1971-2012), there developed an almost Roman Catholic-like deference to his opinions on various matters in some corners of the Church (which is not in keeping with our traditional way of looking at our leaders), wherein his sayings and opinions were treated as de facto infallible. There are various sociological, historical, and even political reasons for this, but it still remains that this was and is wrong. Many people I know (including priests and monks) were very pleased to hear from his successor, the current pope, HH Pope Tawadros II, that he would make it his priority to return to the conciliar model, and that he stressed that we are not a 'Papal Church' in the Western/Roman Catholic mold (not that RCs can't have whatever ecclesiology they want to, of course; it's just a fact that this is a development away from our tradition, in our particular case).

• Members are God’s elect people -- You will see Copts taking "blessed be Egypt my people" (Isaiah 19:25) a little more literally than other people might, but not to the degree that they believe that they are saved or elect or whatever by virtue of being Egyptian or something. There is a more general sense of the Christian Church being "the Israel of God", to quote Galatians, but I can't help but notice that this a broadening of who is included in God's elect, in that case: from the ethnic Jews to everybody who accepts Christ. So I guess this one could go either way, depending on how you consider the proposition that Christianity is uniquely true. (But that is not in itself a matter of particular sect or tradition, as those hadn't developed, and certainly hadn't split from one another, in St. Paul's day.)

• Theology provides an exclusive path to salvation -- In keeping with the point directly above, we should make a distinction between what is correct to say theologically and what is correct to say soteriologically. It is correct, from the Coptic Orthodox perspective, to say that Orthodox theology is exclusively correct (in the sense of not containing any heresy or deviation from what the apostles and their descendants, the fathers, have taught us), but the accompanying idea of it therefore being an exclusive path to salvation is not one that I have heard. The surest/straightest path, no doubt (that's what Orthodoxy literally means, after all; ortho = "straight"; think here how orthodontists straighten teeth), but not exclusive. No doubt there are many within the Church today who will not be within it in the hereafter, and many who are not there now who will be then. (So this stance is half-applicable, I guess?)

• Teachings provide a high degree of direction in how members are to view the world, live their life, and interact with others -- This one is more unambiguously true. Thankfully it's not to the degree of say, Islam, which apparently has rules from 'god' about how to use the toilet and such, but it's still the case that there is a lot of direction about how to live, view the world, and interact with others.

• Special knowledge about metaphysical things such as the purpose of life, nature of God, and the afterlife -- No, there is no special/hidden/occultic knowledge in the Coptic Orthodox Church, or in any Christian Church that I am aware of. It's pretty well against Christianity to approach things in this way.

Concerning the tools to overcome doubt, I have heard some of those from individual members of my former congregation (St. Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church, in New Mexico), but I always chalked that up to the individual personalities of the members who talked and thought that way. In other words, it wasn't a matter of religious directive, but someone taking personal initiative to harangue someone else. It's interesting to me that the way these things usually played out is for the well-meaning busybody to be told to mind their own business. Like a friend of mine from church spent many hours trying to convince me that a literal reading of Genesis is the only really acceptable one, because look at what this Church father said, or what this one said, or what this one said. I told him in every case that there is a wide variety of approaches to this question in the fathers, so it's silly to try to dogmatize one view over another (and our Church has not done so). He then tried to pull the "it's clear you haven't studied the fathers enough, or else you'd agree with me" card, so I listened to him patiently, and then asked him if he had ever brought his ideas up to our bishop, HG Bishop Youssef. It was pretty funny to see his immediate about-face from "the fathers teach this" to "HG Bishop Youssef is wrong! He doesn't know what he is talking about!" That told me better than a yes or no what the answer was, and why it was as it was.

So, just like any church or religion, we have our own people who might think this way concerning some things, but I don't think it rises to the level of receiving such answers or non-answers from the church itself, as we have wisely left undogmatized most things.

Finally, concerning the more open/free inquiry set of tools, I have seen these in action more times than I can count in my own Church, but perhaps not for the best 'looking' reason (in terms of making the Church look good). It is quite simply a fact that as we as a communion were on the 'losing' side of an ecumenical council according to most of the Christian world (Chalcedon, 451), it is that much more difficult to access what should rightfully be our primary source materials from which to study our own Church's position on its own terms. So it is very common to find in Coptic/OO-authored materials copious reference to Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) sources, because these deal with those same matters, albeit not from our communion's own perspective. So it wouldn't really be possible to be OO in the modern world without relying on a wide variety of sources from outside of our own churches, since they are so much more numerous than our own (internally produced) sources. Just by way of example, I have in my possession the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in modern translation done by Gadis and Price, published in 2005 as part of Liverpool University's Translated Texts for Historians series, which is available right now on Amazon for $53. This is the council which ruptured the communion previously shared between the Egyptians (and Syrians, Ethiopians, eventually Armenians, etc.) and the Greco-Roman churches (today's Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). By contrast, I also have (in pdf form) the acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (449), which has been condemned by those same Greco-Roman churches as a "robber council" since the days of Chalcedon (that's what Pope Leo, the author of the Tome accepted at Chalcedon by the Greco-Roman churches but not us, called it), and has been seen as evidence for charging the then-Alexandrian Pope, HH Pope St. Dioscorus, with heresy since that time. It is not quite an "OO council" (in the sense that we don't liturgically commemorate it), but it is most strongly identified with us, since St. Dioscorus chaired it. The most recent (to my knowledge, only) translation of those acts was done in 1881 from a Syriac manuscript only found in Egypt in the 1850s, and it was not done by a modern university. It is only available today because it is in the public domain due to its age and the attendant lapse of copyright. (I found it on archive.org.)

As far as ex-members and their testimonies are concerned, this is definitely complicated by the fact that most ex-members are converts from Christianity to Islam in Egypt (and Sudan, Libya, etc.), so it's not really the same as it would be in the West, where a Christian might reject a particular interpretation of Christianity in favor of another. Should Christians listen to ex-Christian neophyte Muslims? I personally have never come away convinced by any of their arguments, but then I don't live in Egypt or any other place where the society is built around Islam, so that's not for me to judge. Suffice it to say that we do teach our members that they have nothing to fear theologically from Islam, as we have spent 1,400+ years living with it and still bear the same witness that we always have.

The last two points about moral compasses and finding ones own conclusion are good ones. I would think it should be obvious that anyone in any Christian church would not be actively encouraged by that Church to abandon Christianity (so it's not a total free-for-all "hey, if that's what you want to do", as though nobody would try to convince you to stay if you had determined to leave), so in that we are the same as any other Christian tradition, but the closest thing I could think to test this with is how we treat those who have placed themselves outside of the Church by their own actions. With regard to conversion to Islam, that is a thorny issue having many political and other ramifications that I can't really address (since I don't live there). I do know that the historical record presents us with a ritual attested as far back as c.13th century known as the Rite of the Jar for the receiving of Christians who had converted to Islam and wished to return to the Church. From what I could find without spending over a hundred dollars on a book that describes it in detail, it involved the washing of the returnee with water from an earthen jar three times (symbolic of the Holy Trinity) while reciting certain prayers of purification over them, together with their verbal assent to relinquishing the faith of the Muslims and adopting or readopting the faith of Christianity. That's it. More to the point and modern, it is sadly not unheard of that Coptic people in the West will marry outside of the Church without very much concern for the ecclesiastical penalty for doing so (excommunication). In those cases, of which I have personally known a few, it is thankfully also not uncommon that the excommunicated person will show up, often with spouse in tow, to liturgy anyway, even knowing that they and their spouse cannot receive the Eucharist there, as they are technically outside of the Church. This is not an offense, in the Coptic view, but an occasion for joy, as it is better to attend and receive the various blessings that are not given in the form of the Eucharist (e.g., the general absolution, the prayer of the cross, the antidoron/orban, etc.) than to not attend at all. So no one is ever really truly lost to us in the sense of being told to go away or what have you. We neither accept everything into the Church nor demand that it is "our way or the highway." Rather, it is laid out that this is what we do (and why), if need be that this is what we don't do (and why), and then it is very much up to the person to decide according to their own moral compass (which we hope is informed by the Church, even if they do some things are not in keeping with it, as we all are prone to do) what to make of it. Whether in Egypt or America or anywhere, we do not claim to have control over anyone's journey, eternal destination, conscience, or any such thing. It's not even a matter of saying "Okay, you can do this, buuuuut..." and then promising some horrible doom. It's more that we live in reality where we are some 8-12 million people (or 90 million, if you're looking at the whole communion) and we have remained as we are because we believe in these things, so we rely on the strength of that belief itself -- a positive affirmation based on our roots rather than a negative view based on fear. It is known and reported that we lose X people to Islam each year in Egypt (something in the high hundreds/low thousands, last time I checked), for instance. What can anyone do? Are all of those people automatically doomed? I have never received any inkling that this is an appropriate judgment to make. And if they're not doomed for having joined another religion, then how much can we say of those who might join another kind of the same religion?

Synopsis version: It's a mixed bag, but I feel pretty positive about things overall.

 

[withwonderingawe]

1, The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth

I know this has been hard for some of you to understand but I don't think Mormonism teaches the first point, we're told to ponder scriptures and the words of men and then ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

1 Nephi 10:19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost,

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” Joseph Smith

"Within the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known. The Gospel is not behind the times, on the contrary it is up-to-date and ever shall be.” Talamge

2, Members are God’s elect people

Well we teach everyone is a child of God

3, Theology provides an exclusive path to salvation

Well yes but that's true for all Christian thought.

4,Teachings provide a high degree of direction in how members are to view the world, live their life, and interact with others.

Again Christianity does that.

5, Special knowledge about metaphysical things such as the purpose of life, nature of God, and the afterlife

Well I should hope so, no since having a religion if it doesn't answer the purpose of life question.

• 6, It’s not important for your salvation, don’t think about it anymore”

I've never heard that kind of answer. I have heard a quote from Hinkley which says 'Doesn't matter if the pearly gates swing or slide just as long as they open.' Above all things we should have a testimony of Jesus and his atonement then everything else just isn't that important.

• 7, “We weren’t there at the time so we can’t judge the actions of our founder and early leaders”

I think that is true to a point , George Washington had slaves. He inherited them and slavery was just apart of life. People believe in different kinds of old wives tales and live by them doesn't make them dumb or superstitious, it's just an assumption past on to them.

• 8, “We can’t judge behavior in the past by today’s standards. Things which seem wrong today weren’t so bad back then”

Like George Washington and slavery

• 9, “If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong”

I think of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac

10, “We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith”

Why does my daughter in-law have to suffer with cancer?

11, “That is a mystery which God uses to test our faith.”

Well that is the answer to my question

 

[Rescued One]

1, The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth

I know this has been hard for some of you to understand but I don't think Mormonism teaches the first point, we're told to ponder scriptures and the words of men and then ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

1 Nephi 10:19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost,

Nevertheless, Mormonism teaches:

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” Joseph Smith

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Within the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known. The Gospel is not behind the times, on the contrary it is up-to-date and ever shall be.” Talamge

Your church determines what is truth learned by men and what isn't truth.

2, Members are God’s elect people

Well we teach everyone is a child of God

Mormons aren't universalists.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi WWA,

Thanks for your honest and informative reply. That's what I was hoping this thread would lead to.

1, The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth

I know this has been hard for some of you to understand but I don't think Mormonism teaches the first point, we're told to ponder scriptures and the words of men and then ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

I see. In that case, I want to share a video with you and the rest of the thread that I found recently on just what it means within Mormonism to listen to the Holy Spirit, because the implications of it seem to afoul of the picture that you've painted here. (I'm not saying you're wrong about your own religion; really I'd just like to get your take on it, because I found it pretty disturbing, and I'm not able to see how it fits in with what you describe here.)

What do you think of the advice given in this video by your elders (Elder Eyring says this at 5:00) that an answer you can trust as being from the Holy Spirit (rather than yourself, which is the question) should include "love for the savior's prophets" -- meaning the leadership of the Mormon church?

It seems strange to say "ask the Holy Spirit for guidance" in a context in which you are told by the leaders of your own church that you can tell a trustworthy answer from an untrustworthy one based on whether or not the message you think you're getting includes a feeling or a signal that those same leaders are so great or something. Like it's saying "Yes, ask the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will tell you how great I am; if that's not included, then it's probably not the Holy Spirit. It's probably your own emotions instead."

I have a feeling that you're going to tell me that this is a wrong interpretation of Eyland's words, but if that's the case...well, how exactly is it wrong, because I'm not sure how else they are to be understood.

I think that is true to a point , George Washington had slaves. He inherited them and slavery was just apart of life.

George Washington did not claim to restore the Christian Church from centuries of apostasy and to be taught the correcting doctrine and interpretation of the scriptures (and indeed to have been given new scriptures) by direct communication with God, so I don't think that this is an apt analogy.

 

[Jane_Doe]

What do you think of the advice given in this video by your elders (Elder Eyring says this at 5:00) that an answer you can trust as being from the Holy Spirit (rather than yourself, which is the question) should include "love for the savior's prophets" -- meaning the leadership of the Mormon church?

Holy Spirit of God trumps. The Apostles and Prophets are (imperfect) servants of God.

It seems strange to say "ask the Holy Spirit for guidance" in a context in which you are told by the leaders of your own church that you can tell a trustworthy answer from an untrustworthy one based on whether or not the message you think you're getting includes a feeling or a signal that those same leaders are so great or something.

Listening to the Holy Spirit means simply that: listening to the Holy Spirit. It's really a very simple concept to get on your knees, directly ask God something, and listen.

I have a feeling that you're going to tell me that this is a wrong interpretation of Eyland's words, but if that's the case...well, how exactly is it wrong, because I'm not sure how else they are to be understood.

You seem to be overlooking the critical importance of asking the Holy Spirit has in the life of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When we say "you should pray and ask the Spirit" that is really what is meant. It's not "just do it because some dude told you too"-- quite the opposite!

 

[dzheremi]

That doesn't address what I've written at all, Jane.

 

[Jane_Doe]

That doesn't address what I've written at all, Jane.

I fail to see how not.... (this is honest confusion, not trying to be contrary)

 

[dzheremi]

Because WWA contrasted listening to the Holy Spirit with listening to men (so as to show that Mormonism does not teach that its leaders are the sole source of truth), I wanted to get her reaction to an answer from a Mormon leader concerning when you can tell that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit rather than by your own emotions. That answer included this idea that such guidance can be trusted as being from the Holy Spirit and not your own emotions if it includes a love for the leadership of the Mormon church (the elders of the various levels of church governance, of which the elder giving the answer is one).

This paradigm in a sense collapses "listening to the Holy Spirit" and "deferring to the leaders" into one and the same thing, by virtue of tying the two together in such a way that you can only know you are doing the former if the message you receive promotes the latter. So I'm not seeing a clear line or much of a difference between the two in Mormonism as it is explained by Mormon leaders themselves, and I would like WWA to explain how this is supposed to work, since she is the one who contrasted the two.

Note that nowhere in any of this am I denying that asking, listening to, or following the Holy Spirit is what Mormons are told to do, so it is not at all true that I am "overlooking the critical importance of asking the Holy Spirit has in the life of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", as you claimed. I am trying to get a sense of what "listening to the Spirit" actually means and how it is supposed to work when your own leaders put forth the idea that knowing that you are getting an answer from the Holy Spirit (and not your own emotions) is contingent upon whether or not that answer includes deference to their own leadership.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Hi WWA,

Thanks for your honest and informative reply. That's what I was hoping this thread would lead to.



I see. In that case, I want to share a video with you and the rest of the thread that I found recently on just what it means within Mormonism to listen to the Holy Spirit, because the implications of it seem to afoul of the picture that you've painted here. (I'm not saying you're wrong about your own religion; really I'd just like to get your take on it, because I found it pretty disturbing, and I'm not able to see how it fits in with what you describe here.)

What do you think of the advice given in this video by your elders (Elder Eyring says this at 5:00) that an answer you can trust as being from the Holy Spirit (rather than yourself, which is the question) should include "love for the savior's prophets" -- meaning the leadership of the Mormon church?

It seems strange to say "ask the Holy Spirit for guidance" in a context in which you are told by the leaders of your own church that you can tell a trustworthy answer from an untrustworthy one based on whether or not the message you think you're getting includes a feeling or a signal that those same leaders are so great or something. Like it's saying "Yes, ask the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will tell you how great I am; if that's not included, then it's probably not the Holy Spirit. It's probably your own emotions instead."

I have a feeling that you're going to tell me that this is a wrong interpretation of Eyland's words, but if that's the case...well, how exactly is it wrong, because I'm not sure how else they are to be understood.



George Washington did not claim to restore the Christian Church from centuries of apostasy and to be taught the correcting doctrine and interpretation of the scriptures (and indeed to have been given new scriptures) by direct communication with God, so I don't think that this is an apt analogy.

Hi WWA,

Thanks for your honest and informative reply. That's what I was hoping this thread would lead to.



I see. In that case, I want to share a video with you and the rest of the thread that I found recently on just what it means within Mormonism to listen to the Holy Spirit, because the implications of it seem to afoul of the picture that you've painted here. (I'm not saying you're wrong about your own religion; really I'd just like to get your take on it, because I found it pretty disturbing, and I'm not able to see how it fits in with what you describe here.)

What do you think of the advice given in this video by your elders (Elder Eyring says this at 5:00) that an answer you can trust as being from the Holy Spirit (rather than yourself, which is the question) should include "love for the savior's prophets" -- meaning the leadership of the Mormon church?

It seems strange to say "ask the Holy Spirit for guidance" in a context in which you are told by the leaders of your own church that you can tell a trustworthy answer from an untrustworthy one based on whether or not the message you think you're getting includes a feeling or a signal that those same leaders are so great or something. Like it's saying "Yes, ask the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will tell you how great I am; if that's not included, then it's probably not the Holy Spirit. It's probably your own emotions instead."

I have a feeling that you're going to tell me that this is a wrong interpretation of Eyland's words, but if that's the case...well, how exactly is it wrong, because I'm not sure how else they are to be understood.



George Washington did not claim to restore the Christian Church from centuries of apostasy and to be taught the correcting doctrine and interpretation of the scriptures (and indeed to have been given new scriptures) by direct communication with God, so I don't think that this is an apt analogy.

1, Joseph did not have sex with 14 year olds, I’ve discussed that many times here.
2, Joseph did not send men away and then marry their wives, nor did he have sex with any married woman. I’ve discussed that here all so. Only someone looking for faults will refuse to see the evidence.
3, Was BY a bigot, yes to some extent he was however Joseph Smith was not. Each person will have to work that through for themselves.
4, Blood atonement has been misconstrued, it does not even apply to non Mormons. What it was about is if a Mormon man who has taken out his endowments or tasted of the heavenly gifts as it says in Heb goes out and murders as they did at Mountain Meadow they is no forgiveness of that sin, the blood of Christ will not cover that sin. No murder has eternal life in him. It is considered the sin against the Holy Ghost. Only by willing confessing that sin and submitting to capital punishment can he be forgiven or brought out of the spirit prison without having to pay for it there.

That’s it, there is nothing evil about it and BY did not go around killing people in any sort of blood atonement.

His bases for questioning the Church is built upon a lie. He has set up a straw man, prophets must be perfect. None of the Bible prophets were perfect, do I reject Peter because he would not eat with a gentile? Was Noah a false prophet because he got drunk or Moses because he took the glory to himself.

If I’m going to base my doubts on lies, if I’m so prideful that I will not look for the truth then I will stumble, I won’t feel the Holy Spirit and I will be led astray.

 

[dzheremi]

What...? I'm very confused right now.

Can you please answer my question? I don't know what your reply has to do with what I asked. I asked you about Elder Eyland's statement at ~5:00 in the video about the message being received by the Holy Spirit fostering love for the leaders of your church, not about any of the stuff you're writing about now.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Because WWA contrasted listening to the Holy Spirit with listening to men (so as to show that Mormonism does not teach that its leaders are the sole source of truth), I wanted to get her reaction to an answer from a Mormon leader concerning when you can tell that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit rather than by your own emotions. That answer included this idea that such guidance can be trusted as being from the Holy Spirit and not your own emotions if it includes a love for the leadership of the Mormon church (the elders of the various levels of church governance, of which the elder giving the answer is one).

This paradigm in a sense collapses "listening to the Holy Spirit" and "deferring to the leaders" into one and the same thing, by virtue of tying the two together in such a way that you can only know you are doing the former if the message you receive promotes the latter. So I'm not seeing a clear line or much of a difference between the two in Mormonism as it is explained by Mormon leaders themselves, and I would like WWA to explain how this is supposed to work, since she is the one who contrasted the two.

Note that nowhere in any of this am I denying that asking, listening to, or following the Holy Spirit is what Mormons are told to do, so it is not at all true that I am "overlooking the critical importance of asking the Holy Spirit has in the life of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", as you claimed. I am trying to get a sense of what "listening to the Spirit" actually means and how it is supposed to work when your own leaders put forth the idea that knowing that you are getting an answer from the Holy Spirit (and not your own emotions) is contingent upon whether or not that answer includes deference to their own leadership.

Do you not listen to the Spirit? I feel that as a fellow Christian, you would, and that this would be familiar territory.

 

[dzheremi]

Again, I am asking about the specific comment made by your own leader in the video. I am not talking about whether or not Christians or Mormons or anyone would claim to listen to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Big picture to help sort this out, and then address the specific quote:
-- It is a common misconception that a LDS person just blindly follows the words of a human leaders. WWA and I both addressed this misconception and explained the a LDS person knows the Truth via the witness of the Holy Spirit, not a human/s. Listening to the Holy Spirit is also different than listening to yourself.
-- Yes, LDS believe God's modern day Apostles and Prophets do teach the Word of God as His (imperfect) servants. They help guide His people. If a person wants to know whether or not this is True (in general or specific subjects) a person can ask the Holy Spirit.
--- President Eyring is explaining a personal to the Spirit and how this is different than listening to yourself. There is nothing disturbing about this at all.

 

[withwonderingawe]

What...? I'm very confused right now.

Can you please answer my question? I don't know what your reply has to do with what I asked. I asked you about Elder Eyland's statement at ~5:00 in the video about the message being received by the Holy Spirit fostering love for the leaders of your church, not about any of the stuff you're writing about now.

Sorry I should have said part one. I was answering the video and his faulty thinking. If one starts with the premise that the early leaders of the Church were evil and there is some dark secret hidden there then the seeds of rebellion are all ready planted and the Holy Spirit has to leave. I want to answer this more fully but have a busy day, I'll try back this evening.

 

[KevinSim]

“If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong”
“We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith”
“That is a mystery which God uses to test our faith.”
“You should be more concerned about doing what we tell you is right, than asking questions which tear down faith”

These look like answers I get when I ask traditional Christians about some uncomfortable portions of their own faith.

 

[dzheremi]

Big picture to help sort this out, and then address the specific quote:
-- It is a common misconception that a LDS person just blindly follows the words of a human leaders. WWA and I both addressed this misconception and explained the a LDS person knows the Truth via the witness of the Holy Spirit, not a human/s. Listening to the Holy Spirit is also different than listening to yourself.

But the question is: based on Elder Eyring's contention that you may be confident that you are receiving a message from the Holy Spirit and not yourself if that message contains or fosters love for the LDS leadership, then how is receiving a message from the Holy Spirit to be differentiated from simply deferring to the leadership/listening to a human?

--- President Eyring is explaining a personal to the Spirit and how this is different than listening to yourself. There is nothing disturbing about this at all.

I beg to differ, as he makes whether or not the message contains love for him and men of his position within the church a crucial part of determining whether or not the message is actually from the Holy Spirit or not. You don't see how this is a problem in the context in which Mormons themselves such as you and WWA make a big deal out of how they 'listen to the Spirit, not men/yourself'?

 

[withwonderingawe]

The religion/leaders are the sole source of Truth

I think this talk by Hugh B. Brown says a lot about how Mormons think; ( Hugh B. Brown served in the LDS Quorum of Twelve Apostles during the period 1958-1975, and in First Presidency during the period 1961-1970, serving under President David O. McKay. The article below is a classic of modern LDS literature, affirming the worth of education and open-minded free thinking) Brown: A Final Testimony

"There seems today to be a tendency toward flippant thinking, a lack of thought. There seems to be a tendency to belittle what our fathers and mothers thought because we feel we have made some progress scientifically. We are to ready to conclude that everything from past generations is now folly and that our main duty today, as far as the past is concerned, is to get away from it.

There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific -- that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in.

Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self. I should like to awaken in everyone a desire to investigate, to make an independent study of religion, and to know for themselves whether or not the teachings of the Mormon church are true.

I should like to see everyone prepared to defend the religion of his or her parents, not because it was the religion of our fathers and mothers but because they have found it to be the true religion. If one approaches it with an open mind, with a desire to know the truth, and if one questions with a sincere heart what one hears from time to time, he or she will be on the road to growth and service.

There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storm of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. Then, and only then, will we be able to defend our religion successfully. When I speak of defending our religion, I do not mean such defense as an army makes on the battlefield but the defense of a clean and upright and virtuous life lived in harmony with an intelligent belief and understanding of the gospel. As Mormons, we should do with religion as we do with music, not defend it but simply render it. It needs no defense. The living of religion is, after all, the greatest sermon, and if all of us would live it, we would create a symphony which would be appreciated by all....
.....I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

As we all proceed to make our individual "declarations of independence," I hope we can distinguish between liberty and license, that we can realize that freedom is only a blessing if it is accompanied by wisdom and intelligence. At the same time, we all need to resist the down-drag of mental laziness which sometimes leads to the premature hardening of the intellectual arteries. And I would especially urge all of us to avoid sluggishness of spirit, which is the worst kind of lethargy. Some people are phlegmatic to a degree that would make a turtle seem intolerably vivacious.

I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress...."

It goes on and one should read the whole thing.

There will be some who disagree with his whole speech because over the years a number of people have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the doctrine of the Church. One point would be the ordination of women to the Priesthood, a group of women have been excommunicated for not just asking about it but for community organizing and trying to force a vote against the prophet.