speaking up in church
"If I speak, I am condemned.
If I stay silent, I am damned!"
-Jean Valjean in Les Miserables
i find myself constantly facing this dilemma in church. what do i do when i completely disagree with what is being taught or said in church? it may be something about women, the poor, homosexuals, authority, history, or anything else that i feel is morally wrong and adds to the oppression and/or subjugation of others. how should i respond? what is my moral obligation to the evils i see propagated in the proclamation on the family? in the church's stance on same-sex marriage? on the abuses supported in authoritarian priesthood control? to the church-sponsored "bullshitting" about history and beliefs?
if i speak up, i am condemned by the members around me. how dare i question the authorities?
if i stay silent, i am damned. how can i look at myself and those who are hurt, knowing i would not stand up for them?
how do you deal with these?
--------------------------------
Why should I right this wrong
When I have come so far
And struggled for so long?
....
How can I abandon them?
How would they live
If I am not free?
If I speak, I am condemned.
If I stay silent, I am damned!
....
How can I ever face my fellow men?
How can I ever face myself again?
My soul belongs to God, I know
I made that bargain long ago
He gave me hope when hope was gone
He gave me strength to journey on...
--------------------------------
If you think church is an evil place full of people who don't know what they're talking about, I would submit that you haven't been a member for a while.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the proclamation propagates evil, then maybe you need to take a step back and get to the basics.
Are you really a mormon? Do you really believe that God visited Joseph? That he leads prophets today?
Sure, there are hard questions that need to be asked, and positions that need to be justified and well thought out... but If you're questioning the works of prophets, it seems like you need to back up a few steps and get some basic answers from God again.
If I speak, I am condemned.
ReplyDeleteRaisin: Joseph Smith once received a revelation telling Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and a few others that they would be able to go to Canada and sell the Canadian copyright of the BofM, freeing the church and saints from financial difficulty. Not only did they fail, it was impossible for them to succeed. It could not legally be sold anywhere near the area they were told it would happen.
When they returned, they asked Joseph why the revelation had failed. Joseph replied, "Some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some from the devil."
Those called to prophetic roles are humans with human faults. They are not puppets. The make mistakes, even in the name of the Lord. It has happened time and time again. That doesn't make them any less, it makes them all the more admirable.
Furthermore, history has shown that a signature on a church proclamation or declaration does not mean that the signer agreed with or actually supported the document. Presidents and apostles will agree with decisions to create uniformity even though they might strongly disagree them. Apostles' diaries are full of instances where they felt like they "supported the will of the majority and went against the will of God."
All too many church members today are guilty of idolatry and worshipping false Gods. They have held up the institutional church and leaders as objects of worship, and replaced their right to personal revelation and a personal relationship with God with these idols and false gods.
I am not trying to demean these leaders. There are many that i truly love and admire. However, when members of the church treat them as much more than they really, they do them, the church, and especially the gospel a great disservice.
The leaders of the church, from the youngest beehive secretary to the president of the church are not infallible in their callings. They are not perfect. Each of them are fallible humans like all of us - asked to take on difficult and divine tasks.
the narrator:
ReplyDeleteEverything you've said is true. That's why the system of church government revealed through Joseph Smith involves councils. It is unlikely that all 15 members of the the 1st presidency and Q12 will receive a revelation from the devil. But as you point out, it ain't impossible for things to slip through, theoretically (although it would be interesting to know which apostles "felt like they 'supported the will of the majority and went against the will of God'" and how often, exactly).
There is a spectrum of authority. The Family Proc. hasn't been elevated to the status of scripture yet, but it does have the signature of all the prophets, seers, and revelators in the whole church on it. I can't think of anything else in the church like it.
So at this point, I think that if one has moral objections to official proclamations of the Brethren, the only thing to do is to go above their heads. Ultimately, we will all have to answer to God.
@the_narrator & the_silent_observer
ReplyDeleteI think you're both right. And I'm not condemning you, I think what silent is saying is right on.
Just a few additional thoughts, though. It seems like there have been a few times where God tells us to do something that isn't going to work out just to see if we'll do as he asks, or to get us ready for the real hard stuff. There is sometimes a point where you need to walk the walk without asking questions.
The early saints are a killer example of this - especially those who went on the "failed" Zions Camp excursion. Lots of people made it through stronger (what was it, 9 of of the apostles attended), but there are a few who *died* as a result.
And while I agree that there are those who sometimes lean a little too strongly on the arm of the flesh, isn't there a point where the authority that these men have kicks in? I mean, they *are* apostles called of God. I can easily see the prejudices of men having a stronger pull in local ward callings, but prophets and apostles are pretty close to God.
Maybe what you disagree with isn't really in the policy or proclamation itself, it's in the way your local leaders are interpreting it and bringing it across.
What exactly bothers you about it?
From Sunday to Sunday, I too find myself wondering how much I should speak up when I disagree with what is being said.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find discouraging is that Church culture typically marginalizes dissenters. If you speak up and say something too out of line with group consensus, you're typically met with the kind of response raisinbread originally gave, or worse. Rather than directly addressing your comments, people either slip into "resolve concerns" mode or become defensive. It's assumed that you have a weak testimony (at least) or that you are heading down the road of apostasy (at worst). There is essentially no room for a believing dissenter.
This is worrisome to me, because an organization that cannot deal with dissent and which typically only promotes/calls conformers into leadership positions will inevitably run into some problems, sooner or later.
This made me a recall a post on Groupthink I wrote eons ago at ProvoPulse. I really think the Groupthink phenomenon is very much responsible for the frustrating dynamics of elders quorum discussions.
@steve
ReplyDeleteMaybe its the way you bring across the dissenting opinion. I've had some really constructive quorum conversations that resulted from someone asking a tough question. I was the teacher, so I had control of how things played out to a certain extent, though. I've also had to quell small firefights mid class because of a sloppily crafted comment on a senstive issue.
There's a huge difference between saying "Well, the proclamation is wrong on this point" rather than, "I don't understand this part because it really bothers me the way its worded. What about X or Y situation?"
I think that you'll probaby always run into resistance when you question the words of prophets (which includes apostles) outright. But that makes sense, right?
I think if you sit quietly at the back of the room and chalk it up to groupthink you're probably doing everyone a disservice, but I also think that if you're questioning foundational doctrines, you might need to re-evaluate your own personal testimony in a few places.
Raisinbread,
ReplyDeleteI've had some really constructive quorum conversations that resulted from someone asking a tough question.
See, it's not so much about asking questions. It's not about having your concerns resolved. It's about disagreeing with the a consensus that promotes a prejudice or is harmful and offensive (e.g., the widely-held belief that blacks are cursed descendants of Cain).
I think being respectful is of the utmost importance when speaking up in Church, especially if it's to express disagreement. But even carefully worded expressions of dissent can bring on defensiveness and even ostracism.
I think that you'll probaby always run into resistance when you question the words of prophets (which includes apostles) outright. But that makes sense, right?
No. Why should that make sense? When Brigham Young began teaching that Adam was really Heavenly Father, there were leaders in the upper echelons of the Church who questioned Brigham, and justifiably so. While many of the Brethren accepted this doctrine, some never agreed with him. And it was okay, even though Brigham initially taught that the Saints' salvation would hinge upon their acceptance of the doctrine.
I think if you sit quietly at the back of the room and chalk it up to groupthink you're probably doing everyone a disservice
Are you familiar with Groupthink? If you're aware of its symptoms, I really don't see how you can honestly assert that the phenomenon is not common in elders quorums.
Last summer I was visiting my in laws in their California ward and the issue about gay marriage came up. This ward had personally been asked to campaign against it. I spoke up against the campaign and boy was the retribution swift. The entire class went into attack mode. In retrospect I could have addressed it with a little more sympathy, but I did try to use a lot of tact.
ReplyDeleteAfterwords, a member of the stake presidency who was in attendance came up to me and told me he was glad I spoke up. He said, "It doesn't do them any harm to have to think about what they believe."
I think Steve is right in saying there is little room in the contemporary church for believing dissenters. It is a testament to mormonism that these people stay. I am glad that those who speak up make room for the believing dissenter. (emphasis on believing)
Afterwords, a member of the stake presidency who was in attendance came up to me and told me he was glad I spoke up. He said, "It doesn't do them any harm to have to think about what they believe."
ReplyDeleteCool.
@steve_m
ReplyDeleteBut even carefully worded expressions of dissent can bring on defensiveness and even ostracism.
Well yeah, especially if they are wrong. My original comments were more directed at the_narrator's concerns with the Proclamation on the Family. I don't think that's wrong. :)
I would have done the same, and you'll always get a backlash from people that are wrong (especially bigots or racists). Kinda reminds me of when Nephi tells his brothers, "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." There's really no way to help that, but you should totally stand up if something false is being taught (and be commended).
No. Why should that make sense?
Well because there has to be a certain point where you just obey and don't ask any questions. Any good parent will maintain this stance, and I doubt a Heavenly Father is much different. There's lots of reasons for this sort of setup: to test the obedience of those you lead, to create an environment of safety, etc. Besides, there are certain fundamentals that aren't to be questioned (the nature of the atonement and the structure of the family are probably good examples).
When you say "upper echelons" I'm not sure that always includes your elder's quorum. :) That sounds a little facetious, but I think there's some truth in that. If you have a concern, maybe there are some "upper echelon" people you might like to talk to. I'd hope they'll hear out your concerns, because that's how Jesus operated.
Makes me wonder how often things get questioned, though. If God told me to walk up to the mount and sacrifice my only son, I'm sure a conversation would ensue. Even then, however, there's just gotta be a point where you suck it up and trust that God knows what he's doing.
And yeah - I'm familiar with groupthink: my original comment is not in favor of it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: I was saying that if you sit in a class where groupthink is happening and just keep your mouth shut and chalk it up to "groupthink", then you're really not doing anyone any good.
@johnny
ReplyDeleteI think Steve is right in saying there is little room in the contemporary church for believing dissenters.
Well taking a contrary position in relation to the majority is never going to be easy. :)
That's cool about the experience you had. I think its a little bit of a tough time for some people right now because they know that homosexuality is wrong, but they don't really know how to deal with the actual people who practice it.
Its cliche to say "hate the sin and not the sinner" but maintaining that in practice is much harder, especially as the sin gets more serious.
Maybe by doing a good job of speaking out, people can ease the transition and end up helping everyone out.
This is an important topic because I believe there is not enough dialogue among the membership about the intricacies of our faith. While many may simply not be interested in the topics the Narrator listed, and simply do not consider them, it is sad that so many more are afraid or think it somehow wrong to address these issues and are quick to condemn those who raise them. I've come to a few conclusions in as I struggled with these issues. First, you can ask any question if you do it the right way and put the right spin on it. It is sad that we have to soften such questions, but it is a nod to the sensitivity of others (since we all wish people would be sensitive and patient with us too). Second, you're never the only one who thinks what you're thinking, and so, to help those closet-thinkers out there, you need to open your mouth. Third, maybe there are others out there who simply have not heard the explanation or point of view that you wish to share. Fourth, we all need to be more Christlike. Christ was patient. He was patient in gaining knowledge and he was patient with the sinful mortals who surrounded him; we are not all on the same level of understanding or faith, and, it is possible that we never will be. Therefore we must be patient with each other on this wise. Also, Christ would never condemn or ridicule a sincere seeker of truth. He would never mock a woman who voiced concern about sexist comments expressed during a church meeting or a young man who wonders aloud about ambigious aspects of church history. My guess is that he would discuss with kind words and tenderness any question and probably give the person a hug afterward. Maybe we should all do the same.
ReplyDeleteIm not going to get into this too much right now... but i find myself nodding my head in agreement. Im just glad that ive come to the realization that you can still be a good member of the church and not follow blindly. A loving God doesn't demand blind obedience. I refuse to believe that it is more righteous to sit in the back of a classroom listening to false doctrine with a "we will never be lead astray mentality" then to speak up. Granted it won't ever make you popular.
ReplyDelete"the narrator" is prideful - he thinks he has to know it all ... I heard him say once, if I can ask the question, I can know the answer. Apparently he hasn't read the Pearl of Great Price -- God, in VERY plain english, tells Moses that he can't know everything. That if he tried to tell Moses everything, he would explode. So, God tells Moses that he will only teach him of this world. things pertaining to him in the earthly, mortal state ... "The Narrator" refuses to except that there are somethings that he just can't know ... which explains why he is so opposed to the church's stance on many issues. Why is it wrong for for two people of the same sex to get married ... ??? As far as legalities go - I don't know. But I do know what the Bible, BoM, PoGP, D&C, and modern apostolic teachings have said on the issue. So I'll side with God on this one. No I don't always understand, but I do understand just that. There are many times I won't know, I won't understand, I won't agree -- But that's okay, b/c I have a finite knowledge right now. A 3 year old doesn't know how to fly a plane, and in all honesty, I'm not sure he could even begin to commprehend how to. So I'm sure glad we don't allow them to ... Us, in our mortal state can't understand God's perspective ... EVER. "The narrator" (and others on this site) refuse to except that ... they allow their pride and arrogance get in the way of humility.
ReplyDeleteThere are two aspects to consider when you follow Christ's teaching to be child-like. 1 - Question the world around you -- 2 - Know when to stop questioning and trust those that have been placed there to guide you.
RaisinBread: Well because there has to be a certain point where you just obey and don't ask any questions. Any good parent will maintain this stance, and I doubt a Heavenly Father is much different.... If God told me to walk up to the mount and sacrifice my only son, I'm sure a conversation would ensue. Even then, however, there's just gotta be a point where you suck it up and trust that God knows what he's doing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Coward: So I'll side with God on this one.... Know when to stop questioning and trust those that have been placed there to guide you.
You're both suggesting that sometimes we need to accept things on faith and just choose to obey, but you use the fact that we should have enough faith in God to obey to justify the argument that we need to obey our leaders. Do you see the distinction? We're not asked to obey a man based on faith. That's called idolatry. We're asked to obey God based on faith.
I don't mean to imply that it is not through mortals that we receive the word of God. It is. I mean that it is only the word of God when it is inspired by the Spirit, and that it is our responsibility to determine if it is inspired.
How, then, does someone determine if what the man says is the word of God? Well you simply can't determine it at all without questioning it. Only by questioning (hopefully "by study and by faith") can an answer be reached, and that includes an answer reached through faith and confirmed by the Spirit.
Raisinbread
ReplyDeleteWell because there has to be a certain point where you just obey and don't ask any questions. Any good parent will maintain this stance, and I doubt a Heavenly Father is much different.
I sure hope not. I think that we have a fundamental disagreement here, which explains the disagreements in these other areas. Your view of God is much more authoritarian than mine.
I don't want to debate that here, because it requires a post in and of itself, but there are other ways of seeing God's authority. I am merely pointing out that if you start with that premise then that is the point of departure, at least for me.
anon, anon, anon...
"The narrator" (and others on this site) refuse to except that ... they allow their pride and arrogance get in the way of humility.
You know, I used to get slightly offended when people would get all huffy and accuse me of being a faithless, prideful, apostate, etc. But then I realized that people only get that angry when they have run out of anything rational to say. When people don't have anything intelligent or persuasive to add, and they feel that their beliefs are threatened, boy do they lash out. I guess that's okay. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
"the narrator" is prideful
No he is a smart ass, there's a difference.
But I do know what the Bible, BoM, PoGP, D&C...have said on the issue.
ReplyDeleteWhich is...? The D&C, BoM, and PoGP seem totally silent when it comes to homosexuality. Even the Bible's pronouncements are inconclusive, at best.
Is "prideful" even a word? Why can't we just say "proud"?
ReplyDeleteJohnny johnny johnny -- you assume I attack you and that I'm catagorizing you. I'm stating my opinion. NOWHERE did I say you (or anyone) was faithless or apostate. Just prideful and arrogant. I know that it is extremely possible to have A LOT of faith and still be extremely prideful. I've been there on issues, and I'm still there on other issues. But it's something I work on ... to get rid of my pride that is. But it's okay as a good man (I'm seirous, I think he is a good man) once said: "If I speak, I am condemned"
ReplyDeleteSo why is it that if "you" state your opinion and it's contrary to mainstream, you get to hide behind First amendment, "If I speak I'm condemned", "You're just closed-minded and un-intelligent" ad-nasuem rhetoric/diatribe. Yet if I state my opinion and it rubs up against your's all of a sudden I'm still on the butt end of it all??? I'm still the un-intelligent one that doesn't agree with your "enlightened" position. Maybe I've thought it out just as much as you and came to a different conclusion. Or is it that you are now threatened cause you have nothing intelligent to say and are in "fight or flight" mode? Are you now backed into a corner and feel the need to stoop to the level of calling me names?
Johhny and the crew:
ReplyDeleteover the past time I've read all your posts and thoughts, I couldn't say it better then Will Hunting:
Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob'ly, and so naturally that's what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That'll last until sometime in your second year, then you'll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization. --"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inheriated wealth..." You got that from "Work in Essex County," Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagerize the whole book for me? Look, don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of an intellect at the expense of my friend just to impress these girls. The sad thing is, in about 50 years you might start doin' some thinkin' on your own and by then you'll realize there are only two certainties in life.
One, don't do that. Two-- you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda' picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
anon,
ReplyDeleteTwo logical fallacies doth not an argument make. If you have an argument then I would love to hear it. Calling people prideful, stating that we have limited knowledge, and making sweeping claims about the standard works without evidence doesn't really do it for me.
Just so you know I have a good friend who is finishing theology work at Oxford. He disagrees with me all the time(esp. about gay rights), and we have great conversations. I was not commenting on your disagreement, but only trying to tell you that if you want people to take you seriously then you should make arguments for your positions rather than calling others arrogant.
anon #2? (I don't know, all anons look the same to me.)
You should get your facts straight. I am a 2nd yr. grad student :)
Why not leave the church? You might like it. And the cool part is there's no more cognitive dissonance. ;)
ReplyDeleteKeep up the thinking and stuff and it just might happen.
Why not leave the church? ... Keep up the thinking and stuff and it just might happen.
ReplyDeleteAre you implying that thought destroys faith and/or leads to apostasy? Shouldn't thought and research and study reinforce a faith that's founded on truth?
What Peter, and seemingly a lot of others, can't seem to grasp is that persons like the Narrator love the church. That's why we have discussions like this; so we can better understand it. This reminds me of a point one author made about the difference between republicans and democrats. He said that they both love America like they love their mother. Republicans, however, love her like a child does: She can do nothing wrong and anyone who challenges her in any way is wrong and an enemy. Democrats, on the other hand, love her like an adult: they recognize that she is human and makes mistakes just like everybody else, and they want to help her improve and get better. I'm not trying to make a political statement, but this seems to be the crux of our discussion. This is similar to how many of us feel about the church. We love it, its doctrine has changed out lives and stirred our souls. But we want to understand it better, and, since all members compose the Body of Christ, and to help it be better and to reach out to others who think the same way we do. But, alas, I know it, sin has probably made us all stupid.
ReplyDelete@ Bryant:
ReplyDeleteDo you see the distinction? We're not asked to obey a man based on faith. That's called idolatry. We're asked to obey God based on faith.
Yeah I do, and that's a good point.
For me, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between God and God's authority given to man? There's a balance that is to be had there: Having only the Sprit to guide you can be a shaky path. The law and the prophets need to be part of the equation, and they aren't God.
@johnny:
Your view of God is much more authoritarian than mine.
Maybe on certain issues.
I'm just leaving open the possibility of certain situations where God just needs to you do as asked rather than cross examine. I think some of the greatest men in history have taken the leap of faith in those instances, especially those who have sacrificed the lives of their families or their own lives.
Some things, no matter how well considered and argued and well thought out during the time will seem like a good idea.
They're probaby the exception to the rule though.
My thoughts exactly...
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly... When I get some time I really got to read what you've put up on your blog here. We're on the same page on a lot of things!
ReplyDeleteBryant: Am I trying to say that thought destroys faith? I don't think I'm trying to say that. In my experience, the more one learns of the inconsistencies regarding the LDS church, the more their reptilian core (inculcated/adapted survival worldview) comes in conflict with their cerebral cortex (knowledge, information, concepts about the church), producing a type of anxiety that demands allegiance to one or the other.
ReplyDeleteHolmes: What a great comment about loving the church as a mother/adult. Whoever came up with it, what a great example.
I have seen an interesting movement among some of the brilliant young minds in the church. Many of them are indeed proud of their heritage, church, etc., but also love philosophy, logic, etc. Many try to maintain both. Admit it or not, there seems to be a type of pride that goes along with this that says, "I am strong enough to be a liberal-leaning philosophy major AND a devoted church member. My sense of testimony and morality is so strong that I can read church history, question church authorites, AND stay away from beer and tea."
I'm sorry for the the caricature. But I seem to see this theme quite often these days among some of the church's smarter (IMO) truth-seeking (IMO) members. I see it in both Joe and Lloyd.
Psychologically, schema-reinforcing trivia is bound to "feel good" and "ring true" no matter how absurd it is to an outsider. I think a lot of the "knowing" that members claim is just schema-reinforcing trivia.
What I would like to see approached and written from any of these young, brilliant, LDS minds is an epistemological essay on why feelings and emotions are a valid method for discovering truth. Aside from these spiritual things, is there any type of knowledge or truth that can be experienced/known from feelings alone? Are feelings indeed an idicator of truth? (Something from Hume, perhaps...) Would feelings hold up in a court of law? "That man raped me!" "Excuse me ma'am, but I feel that I didn't, therefore I must not have."
How do we know these feelings are not just natural, normal, schema-reinforcing moments? Wouldn't a JW or Muslim, etc., feel the same wonderful feelings when they connect such and such verse with such and such concept, which answers some question they had in their mind?
According to C.S. Peirce, the irritation of doubt demands that one discover the answer to their question. And according to Nietzsche, the drive for purpose is so strong that people would rather say "Nothingness is my purpose" than "I have no purpose."
So can anyone show me how emotional, mystical knowing is a valid method for discovering truth? And could anyone do it in a non-self-reinforcing way, beyond merely parroting the church's own Talmud of trivia? And could one further provide other examples of emotions and feelings as an honest source of truth?
Our senses can be deceived. Illusions trick us. Why not, then, our emotions? Our sense of feeling? Can they be deceived? That whole "Help Others Feel and Recgonize the Spirit," seems the be the point of emotional hijack. Are you REALLY feeling the "spirit" at that moment? Or has that natural, normal process been associated with the voice and will of God in the mind's of mormons since their birth or conversion?
Missionary: "How do you feel about these ten verses we just read?"
Investigator: "Good."
Missionary: "That's great! That is the Holy Ghost telling you that everything I have been teaching you is true," etc.
Let's just assume the BoM WAS true... couldn't an RLDS or FLDS use the same emotional hijacking method for converting someone to their faith? There are more people who have put the BoM to the test and decided it wasn't true, and more people who have gotten into the church and left it than those who have stayed.
And the thought-terminating rejoinder is usually just a self-reinforcing diktat: "They just must not have felt these powerful experiences that I felt and cannot deny. Were they sincere when they read and prayed? Were they humble? Did they recognize the answer? Did they drink tea that day? Did they watch an R-rated movie last week?"
And each of the excuses become more and more a mere expression of the system's safety nets, rather than a reliable objective measurement -- ad incestuum.
Oh my ef gee. Did I really just write all of this? Good night all. Look forward to your comments in the next 24 or so.
Yeah . . . ummm . . . that would be Al Franken.
ReplyDelete@Peter: Good questions. I hope this isn't too far off topic for this post, but I think it's a topic worth addressing.
ReplyDeleteSo can anyone show me how emotional, mystical knowing is a valid method for discovering truth? Our senses can be deceived. Illusions trick us. Why not, then, our emotions? Our sense of feeling? Can they be deceived?
I have two thoughts on that. First, is that I think Church members too often mix up spiritual feelings with emotional feelings. We use words like joy, peace, happiness, etc. when we describe the Spirit, but that's just because real spiritual feelings are less easy to describe, and maybe less familiar to people. But they're not the same. A person feeling "good" is not the same as he/she feeling the Spirit. I don't know well how to describe the difference, except that I believe that if an impression is from the Spirit, the person will simply know that it is from the Spirit. Of course, that's my own opinion and I'm sure it's not the same for everyone.
Second, I think we can be deceived. I think the example of Joseph's "revelation" about getting the rights to the BOM in Canada. He himself admitted that he'd been deceived, thinking it a revelation from God when it wasn't. So how do we tell the difference? In my opinion, and especially since you compare spiritual senses to physical senses, I think the same question applies when you are deceived by a physical sense:
If I look at some painting and think I see something, and then when I look back, it's not what I thought, and as I continue to look I continue to see that I was wrong the first time, then I have to conclude that my first sense was mistaken, rather than that I'm continually mistaken. I think the same could be said about a spiritual sense. If I think I receive a certain testimony, I also think that I am entitled to have that testimony reinforced by the Spirit. Sometimes it won't be, and maybe I need to reconsider if the impression I got was accurate.
Anyway, that's all my opinion and it might not make sense to anyone but me. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong about it.
@RaisinBread:
ReplyDeleteFor me, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between God and God's authority given to man? There's a balance that is to be had there: Having only the Sprit to guide you can be a shaky path.
I appreciate you admitting that, and I agree. It is a shaky path, and sometimes questioning things about faith is really hard. I've personally had a really hard time coming to the realization that simply because a man has the authority to speak for God does not mean that he always does. That may seem obvious to some people, but I still struggled with it, but in the end I feel like my faith in the Church and in the man have been strengthened by realizing that it's not the man's work at all, but that of God.
I think I keep posting things that only make sense to me. Anyway, my point is that I know that sometimes questioning your faith is hard, but I still think it's healthy, spiritually and intellectually.
I know we're totally not talking about speaking up in church anymore, but I'm finding the conversation interesting, so I hope it's okay that I'm not going to do anything to get us back on track.
ReplyDeleteBryant, I like what you have to say about impressions from the Spirit. I really feel uncomfortable when we confuse emotion with the Spirit. In some cases, perhaps the Spirit will cause us to feel emotional. BUT I don't think it's okay to teach members that when you are feeling emotional, you're feeling the Spirit. That's why I get nervous at some church programs (e.g., youth conferences, EFY, etc.) that get kids worked up into a lathery tearful mess, and then plop them into a testimony meeting. I worry that we might be teaching them wrong conclusions about how the Spirit works.
Also, you said:
If I think I receive a certain testimony, I also think that I am entitled to have that testimony reinforced by the Spirit. Sometimes it won't be, and maybe I need to reconsider if the impression I got was accurate.
I agree that impressions may be wrong sometimes. But what if it's right and you "reconsider" your way out of it? Can that happen? Really, what do you think? ...I guess I just comfort myself by believing that a person can't go wrong when she's trying to do right.
Sorry Loyd, we've really strayed from your original post.
thanks for all of the comments everyone. don't worry about taking the discussion of course. i'm just glad that these discussion are going on (besides the anonymous coward matt damon wannabe). and it's prolly best that i haven't commented much. as johnny correctly put it, i can be a smart ass and add a little too much unfriendliness into some conversations.
ReplyDeletei flew to virginia last night to visit my folks fot a week and haven't had much blogging time. and right now i'm not much in a blogging mood. i just found out that a school friend of mine died over the weekend in a motorcycling accident. a little shocked still.
sorry. that last comment should read: "don't worry about taking the discussion off course."
ReplyDelete