I've switched sides...again

[_jon]

Stem,

I take your point, however, I think we can accept that there's a difference in significance between finding ones car keys and seeing an angel. At some point along the line between the two, the belief that it was a spiritual experience becomes less credible.

All I was trying to do by asking the question was to find out whereabouts on that line the OP's experience sits.

[_Hades]

I just want to live the golden rule and I'm using the church as a vehicle to do that. Is it a perfect vehicle to use? Heck no. There are many different vehicles or avenues, but this is the one that feels "right" to me.

Why do you need a vehicle to live the golden rule?

[_hatersinmyward]

Abaddon,

Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus in a pillar of light.

Joseph also ripped off Free Masonry.

Joseph also used plagiarism to write the Book of Mormon.

But after all, Joseph Smith saw God and The Son in a pillar of light.

[_Some Schmo]

I never cease to be amazed by this sort of thing.

[_Themis]

It all goes back to a faithful experience that no scientific answer I've searched for adequately explains (to me; I've no doubt it may for others). It is that spiritual experience that keeps resurfacing in my mind and almost compels me to seek out the LDS church again.

It's the driving force for a lot of different beliefs. Emotions tend to be an important part of the spiritual expereince, and probably are the most important reason why we believe certain things so strongly. Even to the point for many that goes against a mountain of evidence. I hope things go well for you. The church is not a bad place to be if it works for you. I can at least think of many places worse. :)

[_Themis]

Also, what does it matter what he considers is his spiritual experience?

Whats wrong with asking? I told people for decades why I believed the church was true, but you seem to think it is wrong for us to ask. Why not ask details of why a person believes certain things. Sure I might think he is wrong about it, but it can be interesting to get other perspectives, and to see how their expereinces compare to our own and others. How do you tell an investigator they are going to know the church is true. A few might even ask what the spirit is suppose to be, and how does it communicate with me.

I think it'd be easy for someone to attempt to pick apart a spiritual experience. Is that the purpose of asking?

Why shouldn't we ask for details of an expereince. Why is it wrong?

Can't we all just admit that some people put stock in the spiritual and some do not?

Black and white. Some may not, but many do, including agnostics and atheists. What does stock mean, since many who may put stock in the expereince may also not think the experience is communication with the divine.

You simply can't disprove my personal unseeable experience even if you are so adamant that "the church is false"--silly testimony bearer.

Is it wrong to ask questions about it, and suggest other alternatives. In the end you have to decide, but why complain about people wanting more details.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

I take your point, however, I think we can accept that there's a difference in significance between finding ones car keys and seeing an angel. At some point along the line between the two, the belief that it was a spiritual experience becomes less credible.

All I was trying to do by asking the question was to find out whereabouts on that line the OP's experience sits.

F
Fair enough. I get carried away sometimes.

[_Buffalo]

Abaddon's post resonates with me quite well. I would point to more than one spiritual experience though.

Also, what does it matter what he considers is his spiritual experience? I think it'd be easy for someone to attempt to pick apart a spiritual experience. Is that the purpose of asking? Can't we all just admit that some people put stock in the spiritual and some do not? "well your spiritual experience could mean or be attributed to something other than the church is true--we can all feel the need to love others for instance". No one says spiritual experience as a means to feel convicted to a certain belief system is perfect. I personally like the idea that the Church is not for everyone, and was never intended to be, and that some people thrive far better in other places outside the church than they do in. I just realize where I'm at is working for me. You simply can't disprove my personal unseeable experience even if you are so adamant that "the church is false"--silly testimony bearer.

I think we've all had what we thought were spiritual experiences. It'd be interesting to hear what his was. And contrary to what the church teaches about sharing stories about miracles, people in the scriptures weren't shy about it at all.

[_Buffalo]

I just want to live the golden rule and I'm using the church as a vehicle to do that. Is it a perfect vehicle to use? Heck no. There are many different vehicles or avenues, but this is the one that feels "right" to me.

Why do you need a vehicle to live the golden rule?

The golden rule is actually an evolved trait. Just being human is vehicle enough.

[_Buffalo]

I can understand wanting to stick with Mormonism from a cultural perspective. I don't think I'd totally leave the church even if my wonderful wife were on the same page as me. The church conditions parents to treat apostasy of children as if it were a death in the family, and I don't want to put my parents or in laws through that. They're too old to deal with that crap.

But if you're looking for a vehicle for following Christ, it's hard to think of a worse one than the LDS church. Instead of encouraging members to work in a soup kitchen for the homeless, LDS service typically amounts to raking leaves or cleaning up cemeteries. There's more pressure to do home teaching (which is, 99% of the time, a pretty useless exercise) than there is to do actual compassionate Christian service. And as a charity, the LDS church is pretty stingy with its money. There are far better, more Christ-like churches out there.