Why I Can Say I Know Things I Don't Know Intellectually

I believe in gods, and my absolute favorite aspect of Mormon theology is the concept that "I (and every other person) am a child of God" - that I can be godly - that I can be and become a god.

I believe in God, because I want to believe in God. I believe in Heavenly Parents, because I want to believe in Heavenly Parents.

Do I "know" intellectually that they exist and that what I believe is accurate?

No.

Do I feel deeply that there is great power in the concept and principle and that I have experienced something outside my rational comprehension that I choose to accept and call "God"?

Yes.

Thus, do I feel comfortable in a group of members using the accepted vernacular and saying that, based on my own experiences, I know God lives and loves us?

Yes.

I am comfortable saying it in that setting, even though I explain it differently (more comprehensively) on a site like this where I try to flesh things out and explain in more detail.

I'm fine using shorthand when shorthand is appropriate.

I Do Not Have a Spiritual Feeling Orientation

I have never "felt" anyone in spirit in my life. The closest I have come is while doing baptisms for the dead in the temple and feeling choked up while saying someone's name (but it wasn't really feeling a presence) - or when words or thoughts come into my mind that I classify as revelation (and that has happened too many times for me to remember - to varying degrees of strength).

At the most fundamental level, I do not have a "spiritual feeling" orientation - although I do have emotional experiences regularly; rather, I have a "thinking" orientation. Since I was raised LDS in a culture that values "spiritual experiences" highly, I had to come to grips with that different orientation at a very young age. 

There is an obvious theme of balance between feeling and thinking in our religion (or completion including both thinking and feeling), but individuals tend to emphasize what is natural to them - which is ironic, given what we say about the "natural man". I think a huge part of giving up the natural man is seeking and finding balance (ideally, by acquiring a characteristic and/or ability not naturally possessed) - and balance between experiencing God in one's heart and mind is a great example of that. However, I don't think that kind of balance needs to be a 50/50 mathematical split - or a combination of classic, common experiences in either category. I believe it can be different in practical terms for different people, even as nothing more than an openness to experiencing something in the future never experienced previously.

To bring this full circle, that means that I need to recognize my own thinking orientation and my own lack of feeling a spiritual presence but maintain the belief that it could happen to me, if necessary.  It also means I need to accept and value the experiences of people that I can't understand fully because they have not occurred in my own life - and I have to accept and value those experiences for others as much as I do my own for myself. 

Defining Spiritual Maturity

As a framework within which to discuss spiritual maturity, I think it's important to recognize that there are things that can be said privately that can't be said publicly - in ALL groups of any kind. That's just social communion and sensitivity. On the other hand, I say things all the time in church that others would have a hard time saying without push-back, because I've had to do so all my life and have become fairly good at doing it in a productive, acceptable way - and because everyone knows I'm a "faithful", orthoprax member and not a threat in any way.

Spiritual maturity, to me, is about being comfortable with reality (mine and others'), even when there are parts of reality (mine and others') that I am trying to change. It's not expecting more than people can do and be (including myself). It's an empathetic orientation - even when there are things that bother me and that I am trying to change. It's judging carefully and minimally (only as much as is absolutely necessary) and always remaining open to the possibility that I might be wrong in even those judgments.

Spiritual maturity, to me, is close to "perfect faith (whole, complete, fully developed hope)" - or, recognizing the limits of my (and others') understanding and being at peace with those limits. That "limitation peace" is the foundation of growth, since it allows me to pursue "further light and knowledge" while being okay with my (and others') dark sight in the moment.

Spiritual maturity, to me, is knowing what you know, believing what you believe, understanding that you don't know what you don't know, etc. - and realizing that every one of those lists is subject to change - and being at peace with that possibility.

Spiritual maturity, to me, is being totally fine that not everyone is spiritually mature - and that some people are really, really spiritually immature.

The Purposes of Our Sunday Meetings: Some Things Aren't Appropriate for Sacrament Meeting

I have spoken with quite a few people over the course of my life about why our Sunday meetings sometimes aren't nearly as spiritually delicious as they should be - why, when you look around the chapel, so many people seem disinterested.  There are some reasons I wouldn't change (like hearing from average members in Sacrament Meeting who are not good public speakers or who are not well-prepared), but there is one fundamental change I would make church-wide, if I could.  I would make sure every member understood the specific purposes of our meetings, starting with those who preside and set the tone.

In my opinion, the primary purposes of our Sunday meetings are as follows: 

1) Sacrament Meeting: Worship

2) Sunday School: Doctrinal instruction

3) PH & RS: Community building (including "fellowshipping" activities and temporal matters)

There is room for some overlap, but only within the parameters of the purposes. For example:

1) It's OK to provide doctrinal instruction in Sacrament Meeting, but that instruction should be about worship-focused things. Grace, charity, meekness, forgiveness and any other godly characteristic is fine as a topic for a talk, as long as they are presented as aspects of true emulative worship - but tithing, food storage, HT & VT, etc. are not appropriate Sacrament Meeting topics. Anything can be related tangentially to worship by a good speaker, but it should not be necessary for a speaker to take a non-worship-focused topic and bend it into an appropriate topic. 

2) Sunday School should be a school - and I prefer the group discussion model for ALL classes comprised of members who've been attending long enough to have a fairly solid doctrinal foundation. I want real meat in Gospel Doctrine, for example - with those members occasionally cycling through Gospel Essentials (maybe once every five years or so), just to make sure the foundation milk doesn't get sour.

3) PH & RS should be about people - defining and planning service, discussing HT & VT, discussing how to find and reach and inspire others, lessons on those things that really aren't worship-focused but community-centered (like tithing, food storage, emergency preparedness, fast offerings, even temple attendance, etc.), basic get-to-know-you activities, learning from the life experiences of others, genealogy, etc.

Sacrament Meeting should be "spiritual" in nature; Sunday School should be "educational"; Priesthood and Relief Society Meetings should be "social".  I am most concerned about keeping Sacrament Meeting spiritual and worshipful in nature and focus, since there can be spiritual moments within education and sociality.

Spirituality and a Weird Manifestation of Humility

I absolutely believe there is a spiritual dimension of life, but I believe people are "sensitive" to the Spirit to widely varying degrees.  I also believe that, for many people, there's very little they can do to tap into it "on their own" more than they are inclined naturally to do without it morphing into pure emotionalism - and I don't like anything that substitutes pure emotionalism for spirituality.

That's the rub, in my opinion - that those who are more sensitive assume their sensitivity level is the norm and available to all, and, thus, there must be something "wrong" with someone (or in someone's life) if that person isn't as sensitive. It's not the fault of the spiritually sensitive person, and, in most cases, they aren't being arrogant.  They simply don't understand others who feel and experience things differently, so they often think:

If someone as weak and unworthy as I am can feel this, surely everyone can feel it just as well.

It's a weird manifestation of humility in those cases, and it's more common than most people understand, I think.  I can't get upset at them, even though I believe that perspective can harm those toward whom it is focused. 

Spirituality vs. Emotionalism: Manipulation or Manifestation

A belief in "spirituality" assumes the existence of something outside ourselves into which we can tap (or that can communicate with us in some way), while sentimentalism is nothing more than the manipulation of emotions that are common to all - except psychopaths who are the exception that prove the rule. Another term that is used interchangeably by many for sentimentalism is emotionalism. The difficulty in religion is that the latter (emotionalism) can be used (intentionally OR unintentionally, with good OR evil intentions, toward positive OR negative goals, with wonderful OR terrible results, etc.) to approximate the former (spirituality). It happens in the LDS Church, but not one bit more than in any other religion - and far less than many.

Perhaps the best example is the idea among lots of people that tears are a result of an encounter with the Spirit - or, to be more precise, that if you cry in church it is because you have "felt the Spirit". I'm not rejecting that as a real manifestation of real spiritual experiences for many people; I'm saying it's easy for someone who knows how to do so to cause tears, as evidenced by Hollywood and the music industry. For me, the distinction between spiritualism and sentimentalism in those cases when tears are flowing is less about the tears and more about the cause of the tears - and the lesson learned through the experience.

I don't like to draw a bright line between the two and label one as bad and the other as good, since I don't think it's easy (or even possible for lots of people, including myself) to understand perfectly what is a result of exposure to an outside "spirit" and what is completely internal. I also am not convinced that something that is entirely internal must be sentimental and not spiritual. Personally, I think nearly all of the grand visions of our scriptural canon might have been completely internal (visions, not visitations) - but I am totally fine with them being spiritual and not merely sentimental. I say that mostly because of my own experiences.

I've had a few experiences that I personally believe to have been "pure spiritualism" generated by a contact with something outside myself (not just natural reactions totally from within or caused by other people), but, by and large, the vast majority of my spiritual experiences really could be analyzed by someone else and deemed to be nothing more than my natural emotions being magnified or manipulated in some way that is not "spiritual". I believe there is a "Spirit of God" (whatever that means), and I believe there is a God (whom I describe as a Father), so I choose to believe that I have had spiritual experiences - even as I recognize that some of them might have been nothing more than emotional reactions to powerful stimuli. In fact, one of the most powerful "spiritual" experiences of my life came about through a series of events that I know many others (including some here) would see as nothing more than contrived manipulation (NOT by the Church) - but I believe it was spiritual not sentimental more because of what it taught me (the lesson I took away from it) than because of the exact nature of the experience.

Intellect vs. Spirit - vs. Growth of the Whole Soul

I don't have any problems whatsoever with intellectual tendencies - as long as they aren't used to deny spiritual tendencies.

I think one of the great revelations of the Restoration is the idea that our spirits AND bodies are divinely ordained as conduits/tools of growth and inspiration ("I will tell you in your heart AND in you mind" - among others) and that reaching perfection ("completeness, wholeness, full development") cannot be achieved by the spirit alone. If intellectualism is defined as the denial of spiritualism, then I think it can be a stumbling block - but, without that very narrow definition, I think intellectualism is a vital part of the Restored Gospel.

I think the main problem when intellectualism is mentioned by a General Aurhority in a talk is that the intended meaning usually is that narrow definition (relying ONLY on the brain), but that meaning is not articulated clearly enough, and the message comes out as, "Don't think about it."

Are Spiritual Witnesses Valid?

Yes and no.

They are as valid or invalid as we make them, at the very least - and a handful of mine simply can't be explained rationally without a spiritual component.

I wish I had a deeper answer than that, but all I can say is that I believe in something outside ourselves that can, for some, to varying degrees of strength and frequency, open them up to things that can be explained only as "spiritual". Again, I know that's the case with a few of my own experiences that were far more than just "valid". 

However, I also believe some people simply are not open (or as open) to such experiences, for some reason I just don't understand - and I wish we collectively respected that more in the Church. It's interwoven into various passages and verses in our scriptures (that not all have the same gifts, for example), but we tend to accept the more black-and-white, all-or-nothing verses and ignore the implications of the others. I understand that's human nature, but I wish it wasn't so prevalent.

Spirituality and Righteousness Are Not Primarily Communal, Church Pursuits

I believe the general ideas of "spirituality" and "character development" are almost indistinguishable. If we accept Jesus not just as Savior and Redeemer but also as the Master Teacher and Perfect Example, and if we envision "godhood" as a "condition" of being like God, then it makes sense to me that the entire purpose of life can be wrapped up in that goal - to become more godlike - to pursue divine character development. Therefore, identifying what that means at the most basic, practical level and pursuing it makes sense to me as the most fundamental mission of mortality.

My moment of epiphany, if you will, came when I realized that this pursuit is very, very different than church activity. I think when we decouple the two and examine each separately, it is MUCH easier to see the true benefit of each - and that is the first step toward embracing each, in my opinion. For example, "spirituality" and "righteousness" are personal pursuits, at the most basic level; church activity, on the other hand, is a communal activity.

Even that distinction alone can remove much of what I believe to be the problem associated for many with church activity - since I think many members expect church activity to be the primary vehicle for personal righteousness and/or spirituality. I just see the purpose for that activity very differently, so I am not disappointed when I am not "spiritually enlightened" in my meetings - even though often I am spiritually enlightened at Church.

I tackle spiritual enlightenment outside of church activity; I attend church for very different reasons.

What Is a Spiritual Experience?

When I consider what the phrase "spiritual experience" means, I end up answering that question in a bit of a round-about way. Please bear with me while I get there.

I realize that I can construct a reasonable, intellectual argument for or against anything. I mean that fully. If I decide to construct an argument that casts the Church negatively, I can do so; if I want to cast the Church positively, no matter the issue, I can do so. Therefore, I have made a conscious decision to look actively and passionately for a way to reconcile difficulties and remain faithful.

In college, as part of my research on Manifest Destiny, I read just about every anti-Mormon writing of the 19th Century. I took some classes at the Harvard Divinity School - not exactly a bastion of extreme conservatism or champion of Mormonism. After graduation, I lived in the Deep South for a few years. I am probably as well-versed in anti-Mormon rhetoric as most, so my statement in the last paragraph is not stated carelessly. I also, however, understand that I can learn MUCH about the Gospel of Jesus Christ even from classic anti-Mormon preachers and denominations. A few of the most profound spiritual insights I have received have come by hearing something I already believed phrased differently by someone who believes I am headed straight for Hell and would dance in the streets if Mormonism was eliminated completely - simply by hearing it from a different perspective I had never considered previously.

That, in my mind, is the key - truly internalizing and trying to live the Articles of Faith and the core principles of the Gospel, especially by developing the characteristics of godliness outlined as the pathway to perfection in the Sermon on the Mount. I have had more truly spiritual experiences in the last few years, as I have intentionally and purposefully pursued that objective, than I had in the previous twenty years of my life - including in the various leadership callings I have had in the Church.

So, what is a spiritual experience?

It is an experience that makes my spirit grow - that brings me closer to the Father and the Son by making me more like them.

Why Church Activity Sometimes Is a Facade - and the Solution

The following was my initial response to a post on Mormon Matters a couple of years ago entitled, The Facade of Activity, written by Jeff Spector:

It is interesting to me that "the Church" keeps saying, over and over and over, that it can only be a supplement to what happens at the individual level and in the individual home. I think a lot of members just don't get that idea - that they equate "the Church" to the entity that is responsible for their spirituality and righteousness.

Thus, the "facade" (imo) is the gap between what they want "the Church" to be and what it actually is.

I don't think that will change EVER for ANYONE until leaders at the local level and individual members focus on preaching Jesus and His life more than Christ crucified and programs implemented. Christ crucified (and resurrected, of course) saves us, but Jesus of Nazareth showed and taught us how to live and become. That's what truly converts, imo (repenting [changing] and becoming more like Jesus) - and truly converted people use activity in church (and all kinds, really) to bless and love and serve others, not for themselves.

I get tired of people trying to come up with "how to reach people". If it were a matter of creating some program, it would have been created by now. Programs and activities are important for what they do (bring people together for a chance at mutual edification), but that's about all they can do - they can't provide the actual edification.

For example, one of my former Stake Presidents talked once to the Bishops about serving in the community simply to bless and help others - NOT as a "missionary tool". He talked about not seeing people (inside and outside the Church) as potential converts or projects, but instead simply as brothers and sisters in need. He talked about not accepting others for who we want them to be (conditionally), but simply loving them for who they are (unconditionally) - hoping they will grow with us to be "new creatures in Christ" but loving them completely even if we never see any change.

To me, that is the heart of the difference between activity as a "facade" and activity as a sign of conversion.

Spirituality is NOT Emotionalism

The following is the largest reason why I am uncomfortable with a focus on spirituality rather than righteousness:

When the ideal we identify is tied up in how we feel, it is easy to alter "spiritual" into "emotional" - and from there to assume that those who appear to be more emotional (can cry more easily, can empathize more readily, are more prone to share their emotions, are more prone to bear their testimonies, etc.) are more spiritual. I know I am speaking in very general terms with myriad exceptions, but I think almost everyone who reads what I just wrote would have a hard time not picturing women instead of men.

Personally, I think we tend to believe that women are more spiritual than men specifically because we have altered the original meaning of "spiritual". To me, spirituality is not the end; it really is just half of the necessary balance with proper physicality that constitutes righteousness of an entire soul. I'm not sure how to say that properly, since I don't mean to denigrate spiritual things at all, but I just don't see spirituality as an end result of its own - and I am wary of the results that occur when it becomes such.