Discerning the Spirit from Self-induced/Other triggered Emotions

[Gadianton]

As I've said many times, I don't believe feelings, in particular, the supposed spiritual witness, is a big factor for most Mormons, even though it's the number one talking point of conversion. Certainly, feelings in a more generic way are very important to the conversion process, and Mormons are nothing if not resourceful for linking whatever they need to the spirit.

I don't know how big of a deal it is today, but half a lifetime ago, Mormons generally seemed to think a distinct spiritual witness that isn't the same thing as feeling energized after watching Top Gun is something that really happens for people and it matters a lot. I think these faithful fall into one of three groups: doubters, rationalizers, and those who really did experience something. I'm aware of a handful of stories from people in my real life who can claim a real experience. The then apostate husband of a re-activated member I used to visit with, who apparently fasted and prayed for weeks about the Book of Mormon, received some kind of mega-sign, converted, and then went on to high places in local leadership.

Most Mormons don't claim these kinds of conversions. Yes, rationalizers do claim spiritual witness, but they claim to get these witnesses frequently -- a sad story that makes them cry, or a leader in conference saying something that resonates with them. Not all of it is "self-induced". Is it self-induced to cry at a sad movie? But even if outside circumstance play a factor, that doesn't mean it's the spirit.

The doubters make this clear. My father was a rationalizer. He felt the spirit constantly. If you'd ask him if there was a difference between that and a one of these mega-signs, I think he'd be honest and say there are people who had more powerful experiences than he had, but what he had was good enough for a testimony. My mom was one of the most faithful members to ever walk the earth and anybody who knew her would agree. She was a doubter though, because she was absolutely certain she had never received a profound spiritual witness. And a doubter will wonder if that lack means they don't have a true confirmation. So doubters are quite aware of the problem with confusing emotions with spirit and aren't going to trick themselves that easily. That's why The Candle of the Lord was written, for doubters (of this variety) to trick themselves into saying they have received their answer. My mom never questioned the Church for more than 30 seconds in her entire life and so there is absolutely no correlation here between propensity to apostatize and tendency to doubt one's testimony or rationalize it, to my knowledge. On my mission, seemed an even split between rationalizers and doubters.

For those who really experience something phenomenal? It could be self-induced, but there are contexts where it's external. Somebody fasting for inordinate amounts of time and praying for 10 hours a day is probably the former. The thing with Mormonism, for a church that in principle puts everything on the spiritual witness, it doesn't go out of its way to manufacture these for people. Mormonism isn't Pentecostalism. People are more likely to fall asleep in church or reading the Book of Mormon than getting a lightning bolt to the chest.

[sock puppet]

Thanks for the responses so far. As to Gad's trichotomy: doubters, rationalizers, and those who really did experience something, and the three examples shared, his mother a doubter (and the most devout, unshakeable), his father the rationalizer from little feelings (steadfast member) and then the experienced-something after two weeks fasting, baptism, rising quickly in the ranks but then apostatized, Perhaps just coincidence, but the lesser experience made the stronger, more devout, and the one who experienced something later left the church (apostatized). Perhaps there's something linear inversely going on there. Think of the three witnesses, for example.

I was a doubter who couldn't keep doubting my doubts. I grew weary of trying to gaslight myself. It just didn't seem to keep working. Sure, I only lasted 4 days in the religious deprivation tank of fasting and praying, after having read the Book of Mormon a 3rd time. Nada. Well, okay, I was very hungry, very light headed (woozy) to the point of almost hallucinating (more paranoia, seeing things in shadows, sounds being magnified in my consciousness) and very lonely. I did not however mistake those for a "witness." When I explained to my bishop and stake pres, I was told then that if I went on a mission that I would gain a testimony. So off I trotted for two years--but that didn't work either. Actually, just found out more about the church and its foundings to feed my doubts.

So when I see people talk in vague generalities about their "Spirit" confirmation experience, not wanting to explain in detail how it varies from emotions induced either by one's self or from outside stimulus, I wonder if they experienced nothing differently than did I but were just more inclined to proclaim it a "spiritual experience."

[huckelberry]

.... My father was a rationalizer. He felt the spirit constantly. If you'd ask him if there was a difference between that and a one of these mega-signs, I think he'd be honest and say there are people who had more powerful experiences than he had, but what he had was good enough for a testimony. My mom was one of the most faithful members to ever walk the earth and anybody who knew her would agree. She was a doubter though, because she was absolutely certain she had never received a profound spiritual witness. And a doubter will wonder if that lack means they don't have a true confirmation. So doubters are quite aware of the problem with confusing emotions with spirit and aren't going to trick themselves that easily. That's why The Candle of the Lord was written, for doubters (of this variety) to trick themselves into saying they have received their answer. My mom never questioned the Church for more than 30 seconds in her entire life and so there is absolutely no correlation here between propensity to apostatize and tendency to doubt one's testimony or rationalize it, to my knowledge. On my mission, seemed an even split between rationalizers and doubters.

For those who really experience something phenomenal? It could be self-induced, but there are contexts where it's external. Somebody fasting for inordinate amounts of time and praying for 10 hours a day is probably the former. The thing with Mormonism, for a church that in principle puts everything on the spiritual witness, it doesn't go out of its way to manufacture these for people. Mormonism isn't Pentecostalism. People are more likely to fall asleep in church or reading the Book of Mormon than getting a lightning bolt to the chest.

Gadianton, I find myself with a curiously mixed, perhaps contradictory reaction to your observations.I do not trust Pentecostal type emotion. I strikes me as confused and manufactured but I am an outsider keeping a distance. I find myself with some respect for your parents approach. I suspect they intuit value and trust that without emotional hype.

I have a few times thought that being on the edge of sleep in church is experienced as a spiritual experience within Mormon culture. It is warm comfortable and touches on our dream awareness. I was going to say it is funny to think the edge of sleep in church is a spiritual ritual but it might not be all wrong or all empty. Perhaps better not to snore.

Then there is the soft sonic rhythm of babes and young children.(preferably soft)