Truth Dancer and The Spirit

[_Analytics]

Over on MADB, Kevin Christensen just made a great post which I think is totally relevant to this discussion...

It seems to me that Mormonism qua Mormonism is squarely a Position 3 philosophy. “Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate” seems to be a perfect label for the idea that everybody has some legitimate truth, but those truths are subordinate to Mormonism because only it has the “full” truth with the one-and-only true Prophets who are God's only official representatives.

Of course individual Mormons grow beyond that, but when they do it is in spite of the church’s teachings rather than as a result of embracing them. Seriously. When was the last time you heard a General Conference talk that tells the members that as members of this particular church, they should “have no illusions about having ‘arrived’ permanently on top of some heap” and that you should “discarded obedience in favor of agency.”

On the other hand, I suppose a Mormon could embrace these higher positions as something taught in the temple. After all, Adam’s quantum growth was a direct result of his decision to disobey God and eat the fruit. Perhaps when the temple explicitly has you committing to obey the priesthood leaders of the church, that is only symbolic of the higher truth of obeying your own conscience and taking the path less traveled. If that’s the true meaning, it’s only the people who reject the church’s explicit teachings about its own truthfulness who are in a position to embrace the real truth which is buried in symbolism.

[_Themis]

This discussion parallels the one I think on "The Spirit and Feelings" here on this forum in which I have posted several times with no response- so between these two threads perhaps we can get a good discussion going, since the subject I think is a crucial one since I see no problem with what you have said so far, and yet obviously this is a major stumbling block for critics.

It might be helpful if you could recognize that your posts have been given sufficient responses to. That you don't seems to say more about you then it does about supposed critics.

But for a short answer, let me say that if one truly believes in PERSONAL revelation, as I do, the only possible conclusion is that those spiritual answers would be PERSONAL, ie: tailored for the individual to move that INDIVIDUAL forward on the path to finding God. This means that if that individual needs to be Buddhist to find God, that individual could receive a "true" revelation from God to become Buddhist or whatever else works for that person.

I see no problem with spiritual experiences being personal, but your belief still has the problem of whether there is some unseen divine being communicating with us and telling us the best path for us. Internally generated spiritual experiences seem to be just as good at telling you or I what path we should be on. It also doesn't really address how you know the LDS path is the truest or best for everyone.

What critics seem to not understand is that this is actually part of LDS doctrine. We believe that there is truth in all "churches" (paths to God) but that ours is the "best" path in that it contains more "truth" than any other path.

Most who respond will probably follow the line "but that's not what Mormons believe" and we will continue the discussion battling their hidebound caricatures of the gospel- that's what my crystal ball says-- but that is also why you haven't had any TBM's willing to take on this unending same discussion one more time.

Ah mfbukowski has spoken so we can't possibly disagree that it may not fit with what the church teaches. Sure the church teaches that there is truth in all other religions, but it also teaches that it has the best path, and one that we all have to take in order to be with God and all that, but if one has never heard about this best path then sure the church will say that God will lead them with the best path they have available.

But this life is about learning which paths work and which don't, and I don't see how you can find the truth without taking a few twists and turns. I myself have been Catholic atheist and Buddhist and am now LDS - and have been for 30 years- and this is where I am staying because I have tried those other paths and found this to be the "best" which encompasses all the other paths I have taken. And trust me, I know enough about the way the church works to know all the negatives too. ALL the negatives.

Having read a number of your posts about being atheist, I think you may have been a very naïve one at that. I should note that I am not atheist in case your wondering.

You still are assuming some kind of ultimate truth, and that different paths can lead us closer but not as close as the LDS path. I have no problem with what works best for an individual, just your assumptions that the LDS is the best path or truest path for everyone. It may work well for many members but not all, and how do they know there are not better paths out there. You seem to want to suggest that because you have been out there that you should be some authority on what works best. Some of us also know enough about how the church works to know all the negatives, as well as all the positives.

To reduce my point to it's most basic and obvious example, if you take a drunk on skid row who wants to change his life, would God give him a "genuine" revelation to join the Salvation Army if they were the only ones who paid attention to him and brought him to Christ?

Of course he would!

I don't need to assume God in order to understand that he may have a internally generated spiritual experience that he may interpret from God that leads him to join the Salvation Army, especially if they were the only ones to pay attention and help him

Would any TBM argue with that point?

Who says any TBM would argue that point?

Now I suppose the rest of the thread will be devoted to what is and is not doctrine. Oh well. If that's the way it goes, I will tell you in advance it's not worth my time to participate.

I'm not sure why you think poising the well will get a good discussion going.

[_mfbukowski]

A couple of thoughts,

At this moment, I don't have time to go into all the details, but I think that Mormonism is the most life-affirming path to "what works" for society and all humans I have seen.

Could it be that because this works for you, you imagine that it is the best for "society and all humans?"

Personally, I find this extraordinary to say the least. I think if it were true, much of the world would embrace it. Further, my personal observation is that Mormonism works for a very, very few; mostly (yes there are exceptions), those who were born into the tribe.

One other point, I think Mormonism is one of the most black and white belief systems around. While you and some others may find a way to interpret it as something else, the bottom line is that it teaches a "one and only way to God," it teaches a one true church, and only its members have the gift of the holy ghost and the true power of God (for men at least). It alone has the keys, the rituals, the covenants, the tokens that enable one to receive the highest reward. No?

Again, I understand that there are those who see it differently but my observation and experience is that unless one is a believing member of the LDS church, the elite temple going type, you are not going to live with God in the CKHL. How can this be any more black and white?

~td~

Yes I know.

If you go back and read my earlier posts, I said this would happen.

I am a convert - at the age of 30, following graduate study in philosophy at a very secular university- please also notice the post with the quote from Kevin C, found above.

He finds, obviously, critics to be in the mold of "Anticitizen", the critic about whom he posted that. Notice that what he describes as a characteristic of Antic. is what you are mentioning in your post as being characteristic of Mormons, and what KC is opposing

Again, I understand that there are those who see it differently but my observation and experience is that unless one is a believing member of the LDS church, the elite temple going type, you are not going to live with God in the CKHL. How can this be any more black and white?

What you are not seeing is that Mormon doctrine is that if you have not had an honest "opportunity" to appreciate this path in this life-- or have been "deluded" (I am using Mormon terminology here not to offend, but so that you can see the language game they use to describe what I am describing using different terminology)- deluded into NOT seeing the value of Mormonism from experiences you are describing-- you would still have an "honest opportunity" to do some at sometime later in your progression.

Even given that you later decide it is really really not for you, having had a full opportunity to "really get it"- what happens? If you have been a sincere seeker but "deluded by the philosophies of men" you go to the Terrestrial Kingdom in Mormon belief- what most other Christian groups would call "heaven" and the highest they aspire to.

What you describe as "Mormonism" I think is a caricature exemplified by people like Nightlion, who, I would like to point out, does not represent the Church I belong to, since he has apparently, judging from his comments, been excommunicated

[_Themis]

A couple of thoughts,

At this moment, I don't have time to go into all the details, but I think that Mormonism is the most life-affirming path to "what works" for society and all humans I have seen.

Could it be that because this works for you, you imagine that it is the best for "society and all humans?"

I think he does. I know many people who think this way, and if they like something, they always think everyone else will to or should

[_mms]

mfb--

I truly appreciate your willingness to jump in here and, I must say, after reading through your posts and the post from Mr. Christensen that you re-posted, here, I think I understand where you are coming from.

The problem is, however, and I know you saw this coming, unless you can show me a modern-day prophet backing up your view of the matter, I am entirely convinced based on my long experience in the Church that no such modern-day prophet would concur with you that God would provide a deceptive and even false answer to someone simply to have that someone start a path to God (though I may have misunderstood your position).

You state that this has been discussed time and again, and I think you are right, but I added a bit of a twist that has arisen in my personal situation. I am not sure your explanation really accounts for this, but it very well may, so please clarify and be very direct and maybe even write to me like you were a female general conference speaker ;-)...you know, like I am five years old.

My twist is this:

I am a returned missionary, high priest who has served in leadership capacities on a ward and stake level. I began researching Church history for the first time a few years ago. I continued and continue to attend Church. Certain matters of history caused me to dig deeper and my testimony began to weaken. In my continuing struggle to try to determine what is right for my life, I have encountered some dark days, but I have continued to have those moments of epiphany/emotion that I understood to be "the Spirit." Some of those experiences have been while reading opinions that are COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what the Church taught me to believe--especially as it regards staying active in the Church.

So, to be clear, am I to understand that you believe it may very well be that God is guiding me out of the Church?

[_mfbukowski]

It seems to me that Mormonism qua Mormonism is squarely a Position 3 philosophy. “Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate” seems to be a perfect label for the idea that everybody has some legitimate truth, but those truths are subordinate to Mormonism because only it has the “full” truth with the one-and-only true Prophets who are God's only official representatives.

Well obviously I disagree with you and Kevin C must also disagree with this position since he made that post.

Of course individual Mormons grow beyond that, but when they do it is in spite of the church’s teachings rather than as a result of embracing them. Seriously. When was the last time you heard a General Conference talk that tells the members that as members of this particular church, they should “have no illusions about having ‘arrived’ permanently on top of some heap”

Seriously? They say that all the time! When have you heard a GA say that if you are endowed there is nothing else you must do? Come on now! And you know that agency is always affirmed- but it does have it's consequences!

On the other hand, I suppose a Mormon could embrace these higher positions as something taught in the temple. After all, Adam’s quantum growth was a direct result of his decision to disobey God and eat the fruit. Perhaps when the temple explicitly has you committing to obey the priesthood leaders of the church, that is only symbolic of the higher truth of obeying your own conscience and taking the path less traveled. If that’s the true meaning, it’s only the people who reject the church’s explicit teachings about its own truthfulness who are in a position to embrace the real truth which is buried in symbolism.

Why did Christ teach in parables?

[Guest]

Fair enough.

I think that there are only "life affirming" paths and their negation.

Of all the possible life affirming paths, I think only one affirms life the most, and most purely.
Analogy:
So it is kind of like getting to Oz- that is everyone's ultimate goal, but we are all coming from different "places". The road to Oz from LA is different than the one from Siberia, but ultimately all "true" (life-affirming) roads lead to "Oz". Some need to go North, others West, etc. Some get messed up in the bushes etc.

Sound kind of like Lehi's dream?

Gee, I wonder why....

Lehi's dream has many paths that lead to the great and spacious, but only one true path to the tree. Your idea of many roads to OZ still does not conform to what the church teaches. The church teaches that other paths may lead closer to the true path but in order to be with God and all that you will eventually need to find that path. and no need to bring up your prediction of us disagree with you about it. It should not be a surprise that even some believing members would disagree with you, since your views are fairly liberal in the LDS sense. by the way I think in many ways that is a good thing

[_truth dancer]

Hi MFB,

What you are not seeing is that Mormon doctrine is that if you have not had an honest "opportunity" to appreciate this path in this life-- or have been "deluded" (I am using Mormon terminology here not to offend, but so that you can see the language game they use to describe what I am describing using different terminology)- deluded into NOT seeing the value of Mormonism from experiences you are describing-- you would still have an "honest opportunity" to do some at sometime later in your progression.

Oh, I totally understand this. However, the bottom line is, if someone doesn't believe in the LDS church and Joseph Smith, they are not going to be with God in the CKHL. Period.

Even given that you later decide it is really really not for you, having had a full opportunity to "really get it"- what happens? If you have been a sincere seeker but "deluded by the philosophies of men" you go to the Terrestrial Kingdom in Mormon belief- what most other Christian groups would call "heaven" and the highest they aspire to.

Personally, it doesn't matter int he least what other groups teach about the afterlife. It is irrelevant in my opinion. Again, this is black and white; one believes (in this life or the next) in the LDS church or not. In order to live with God in the CKHL, they must be a temple going LDS member. There is a one and only way to God and it is the LDS church. Period. Others may have little specks of truth but unless one believes in Mormonism they do not live with God. Simple as that.

What you describe as "Mormonism" I think is a caricature exemplified by people like Nightlion, who, I would like to point out, does not represent the Church I belong to, since he has apparently, judging from his comments, been excommunicated

Oh dear, no. LOL! I don't think NL comes close, he is one of a kind. (No offense NL). :-)

~td~

[_Themis]

Personally, it doesn't matter int he least what other groups teach about the afterlife. It is irrelevant in my opinion. Again, this is black and white; one believes (in this life or the next) in the LDS church or not. In order to live with God in the CKHL, they must be a temple going LDS member. There is a one and only way to God and it is the LDS church. Period. Others may have little specks of truth but unless one believes in Mormonism they do not live with God. Simple as that.

That's how I understand Church teaches on it. Most members I have known have thought this way, and I've yet to see any Church leader teach something else. I realize that a few members have different beliefs about it, but I see no reason we can't correct them when they try and pass off their liberal views as church doctrine. Correcting them also does not mean I think their views are less correct then your typical Mormon, and I see it as a natural evolution in belief. I think the church's doctrine in a hundreds year will look nothing like they do today. Maybe they will look more like MFB ideas.

[_mfbukowski]

My twist is this:

I am a returned missionary, high priest who has served in leadership capacities on a ward and stake level. I began researching Church history for the first time a few years ago. I continued and continue to attend Church. Certain matters of history caused me to dig deeper and my testimony began to weaken. In my continuing struggle to try to determine what is right for my life, I have encountered some dark days, but I have continued to have those moments of epiphany/emotion that I understood to be "the Spirit." Some of those experiences have been while reading opinions that are COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what the Church taught me to believe--especially as it regards staying active in the Church.

So, to be clear, am I to understand that you believe it may very well be that God is guiding me out of the Church?

I do not think that, but in your position YOU may think that, and it is an inescapable conclusion from my position that such a thing is possible.

I think you need to pray a lot and then follow the spirit to the best of your ability.

I have posted this story often, so I won't belabor it, but I have heard about an individual who felt he was being "called" to another faith, and he followed that calling, and ended up joining a specific Protestant denomination, and because of his experience in our church he was able to perform a great work toward opening communications between that denomination and the LDS church. Within in year or so after completing that work from within that denomination, he again felt the stirrings of the spirit to return to the LDS church, which he did.

It is his belief that he was "called away" for a specific mission which he performed, and then came back.

I would never tell anyone not to follow what they earnestly prayed about and believed to the "the spirit" leading them to anything. You absolutely MUST follow your conscience or how could you ever live with yourself living a lie?

BUT

That said, I would encourage you to do what you are doing and examine the issues which you find with the LDS church in light of what we are discussing here. Historical "evidence" is highly suspect whenever it comes to issues such as motivation etc. There is, in my opinion, no way we can know what "truly happened" unless we were there, and even then we would have to somehow be inside someone's head to know what their motivations were for virtually any action.

And further I would caution you to not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and give up the richness available in the kind of theology I see because of the possibility that a few leaders might have made major mistakes in their lives.

We are all human, even "prophets seers and revelators" and with your leadership experience this should be abundantly clear.