Soccer Mom's thread grabbed my attention.

[woot]

I know this will sound condescending, but I don't think this realization is a big deal and I'm surprised more people don't figure this out much earlier. Everybody should at some point have this same realization (if they ever really believed in the first place): that the most likely explanation of "spiritual feelings" is that they represent normal, biological emotions. It's not really a big deal -- it's stage 4 of Fowler's stages of faith that everybody is supposed to go through in their 20s or 30s.

It's after you have this realization that you can really choose to exercise faith with the full knowledge that the things in which you choose to believe are improbable or unlikely. I'm not even speaking of Mormonism specifically but just Christianity generally when I refer to exercising faith in things that should seem highly unlikely to any intelligent, rational person.

I actually agree with this, but the power of childhood brainwashing can't be overestimated. I feel very lucky that I had the sorts of experiences that allowed me to overcome it, but it seems that many people don't.

[RobinFinderson]

I know this will sound condescending, but I don't think this realization is a big deal and I'm surprised more people don't figure this out much earlier. Everybody should at some point have this same realization (if they ever really believed in the first place): that the most likely explanation of "spiritual feelings" is that they represent normal, biological emotions. It's not really a big deal -- it's stage 4 of Fowler's stages of faith that everybody is supposed to go through in their 20s or 30s.

It's after you have this realization that you can really choose to exercise faith with the full knowledge that the things in which you choose to believe are improbable or unlikely. I'm not even speaking of Mormonism specifically but just Christianity generally when I refer to exercising faith in things that should seem highly unlikely to any intelligent, rational person.

That transition, from stage 3 to 4 (and beyond) seems very difficult to many LDS. Though one can never know what is happening in the private spiritual space of the heart, from the outside, I don't think that many of the family members of my parents' generation have undergone this transition. In contrast, many of my friends and family that are about my age (35) have seemed to undergo this stage of spiritual development. Indeed, this stage of development is essentially what I was writing about and admiring when I posted THIS in a different thread. Whether people choose to stick with the church or flee it, I feel pleasure in hearing about people taking personal ownership of their faith, and unhitching their personal spirituality from the conventions of faith's larger institutional flagship (the church).

That said, doesn't it seem like the church, as an institution, cultivates culture in which expressions of stage 3 are rewarded, but expressions of anything more than that are discouraged?

[LA Ute]

I know this will sound condescending, but I don't think this realization is a big deal and I'm surprised more people don't figure this out much earlier. Everybody should at some point have this same realization (if they ever really believed in the first place): that the most likely explanation of "spiritual feelings" is that they represent normal, biological emotions. It's not really a big deal -- it's stage 4 of Fowler's stages of faith that everybody is supposed to go through in their 20s or 30s.

It's after you have this realization that you can really choose to exercise faith with the full knowledge that the things in which you choose to believe are improbable or unlikely. I'm not even speaking of Mormonism specifically but just Christianity generally when I refer to exercising faith in things that should seem highly unlikely to any intelligent, rational person.

Well-said, Cardiac. Every thinking person goes through this when considering religion personally. I first did as a young full-time missionary. One of my companions observed that (academically speaking) if there is a God and a Holy Ghost, they must communicate with us through our physical senses. So is a "burning in the bosom" an emotional response, heartburn, or a supernatural force communicating with us? We all have a different answer. My own approach has been to try to be intelligent in deciding, but not to over-analyze feelings. To me that's looking a gift horse in the mouth.

[RobinFinderson]

Well-said, Cardiac. Every thinking person goes through this when considering religion personally. I first did as a young full-time missionary. One of my companions observed that (academically speaking) if there is a God and a Holy Ghost, they must communicate with us through our physical senses. So is a "burning in the bosom" an emotional response, heartburn, or a supernatural force communicating with us? We all have a different answer. My own approach has been to try to be intelligent in deciding, but not to over-analyze feelings. To me that's looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to assume that spiritual experience is going to happen through our physical senses. Physical senses are capable of being deceived. If you want to be really 'logical,' to make the argument that spiritual experience is something capable of transmitting truth we might have to assume the existence of a sixth sense, a spiritual receiver.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to assume that spiritual experience is going to happen through our physical senses. Physical senses are capable of being deceived. If you want to be really 'logical,' to make the argument that spiritual experience is something capable of transmitting truth we might have to assume the existence of a sixth sense, a spiritual receiver.

That seems less logical to me.

[RobinFinderson]

That seems less logical to me.

Really? I'm just borrowing a technique used by quantum physicists. There are subatomic particles that are so tiny that we our current technological view of the universe offers us no hope to ever being able to 'see' them. But we witness sub-atomic phenomena and deduce the existence of these particles, and then we give them names.

Well to me, it just doesn't seem reasonable for God to transmit essential 'truth' via something as prone to deception as physical sense. If the truth is essential, and if God is perfect, and if we are going to be judged based on what we do with the truth, it would seem reasonable that the truth would be experienced via something more trustworthy than emotions and physical feeling. From that maybe we can deduce the existence of a spiritual sensing receptor.

Where does that line of reasoning fall flat?

[wuapinmon]

That seems less logical to me.

Really? I'm just borrowing a technique used by quantum physicists. There are subatomic particles that are so tiny that we our current technological view of the universe offers us no hope to ever being able to 'see' them. But we witness sub-atomic phenomena and deduce the existence of these particles, and then we give them names.

Well to me, it just doesn't seem reasonable for God to transmit essential 'truth' via something as prone to deception as physical sense. If the truth is essential, and if God is perfect, and if we are going to be judged based on what we do with the truth, it would seem reasonable that the truth would be experienced via something more trustworthy than emotions and physical feeling. From that maybe we can deduce the existence of a spiritual sensing receptor.

Where does that line of reasoning fall flat?

I feel a Locke & Berkeley vs. Hume fight coming on!

[Viking]

Well-said, Cardiac. Every thinking person goes through this when considering religion personally. I first did as a young full-time missionary. One of my companions observed that (academically speaking) if there is a God and a Holy Ghost, they must communicate with us through our physical senses. So is a "burning in the bosom" an emotional response, heartburn, or a supernatural force communicating with us? We all have a different answer. My own approach has been to try to be intelligent in deciding, but not to over-analyze feelings. To me that's looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I appreciate this post.

If one feels a "burning bosom" in a moving film as well as during a testimony does it mean that the physical sensation has no meaning, simply because it occurred in unrelated secular and religious settings? Could it be that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is incorrectly identified as the feeling (the burning bosom/tingling spine) as opposed to the cause of the feeling?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know this will sound condescending, but I don't think this realization is a big deal and I'm surprised more people don't figure this out much earlier. Everybody should at some point have this same realization (if they ever really believed in the first place): that the most likely explanation of "spiritual feelings" is that they represent normal, biological emotions. It's not really a big deal -- it's stage 4 of Fowler's stages of faith that everybody is supposed to go through in their 20s or 30s.

It's after you have this realization that you can really choose to exercise faith with the full knowledge that the things in which you choose to believe are improbable or unlikely. I'm not even speaking of Mormonism specifically but just Christianity generally when I refer to exercising faith in things that should seem highly unlikely to any intelligent, rational person.

There is no question that many things labeled as "the spirit" are simple human emotions. However, I have had some religious experiences that transcend and were unlike any other emotional reactions I have experienced. And ironically, some of the most powerful experiences came at periods in my life when I was quite doubtful of all things religion. I.e., my skepticism had put me in a frame of mind that would not make me pre-disposed to misinterpret or overstate my emotions. I suppose the most logical explanation for these cases would be that these were also simple biological events rather than something divine. But I choose to believe otherwise.

[Jarid in Cedar]

There is no question that many things labeled as "the spirit" are simple human emotions. However, I have had some religious experiences that transcend and were unlike any other emotional reactions I have experienced. And ironically, some of the most powerful experiences came at periods in my life when I was quite doubtful of all things religion. I.e., my skepticism had put me in a frame of mind that would not make me pre-disposed to misinterpret or overstate my emotions. I suppose the most logical explanation for these cases would be that these were also simple biological events rather than something divine. But I choose to believe otherwise.

I think the difference, in my experience, is when I have to think about it and wonder what is going on, it is likely a biologicval response(in my personal cases anxiety), but if I step back and think 'Wow, something special just happened(is happening)' then there is no question.

[Viking]

There is no question that many things labeled as "the spirit" are simple human emotions. However, I have had some religious experiences that transcend and were unlike any other emotional reactions I have experienced. And ironically, some of the most powerful experiences came at periods in my life when I was quite doubtful of all things religion. I.e., my skepticism had put me in a frame of mind that would not make me pre-disposed to misinterpret or overstate my emotions. I suppose the most logical explanation for these cases would be that these were also simple biological events rather than something divine. But I choose to believe otherwise.

The biological response is not the spirit, in my estimation. BUT it could be that the spirit triggers the biological response, similar to other positive stimuli.

[Danimal]

I think the difference, in my experience, is when I have to think about it and wonder what is going on, it is likely a biologicval response(in my personal cases anxiety), but if I step back and think 'Wow, something special just happened(is happening)' then there is no question.

I think that much of what I thought was the spirit growing up was misinterpreted anxiety. I don't discount all my previous spiritual experiences as this, but I believe that the majority were. Unfortunately, church was only making anxiety worse. I'd like to think that at least a few of the times, though, were unrelated to anxiety.

[KillerDog]

I know this will sound condescending, but I don't think this realization is a big deal and I'm surprised more people don't figure this out much earlier. Everybody should at some point have this same realization (if they ever really believed in the first place): that the most likely explanation of "spiritual feelings" is that they represent normal, biological emotions. It's not really a big deal -- it's stage 4 of Fowler's stages of faith that everybody is supposed to go through in their 20s or 30s.

It's after you have this realization that you can really choose to exercise faith with the full knowledge that the things in which you choose to believe are improbable or unlikely. I'm not even speaking of Mormonism specifically but just Christianity generally when I refer to exercising faith in things that should seem highly unlikely to any intelligent, rational person.

Good, sounds like I'm right on target. I first started questioning this in my late 20s.

[KillerDog]

That transition, from stage 3 to 4 (and beyond) seems very difficult to many LDS. Though one can never know what is happening in the private spiritual space of the heart, from the outside, I don't think that many of the family members of my parents' generation have undergone this transition. In contrast, many of my friends and family that are about my age (35) have seemed to undergo this stage of spiritual development. Indeed, this stage of development is essentially what I was writing about and admiring when I posted THIS in a different thread. Whether people choose to stick with the church or flee it, I feel pleasure in hearing about people taking personal ownership of their faith, and unhitching their personal spirituality from the conventions of faith's larger institutional flagship (the church).

That said, doesn't it seem like the church, as an institution, cultivates culture in which expressions of stage 3 are rewarded, but expressions of anything more than that are discouraged?

I think the Church, out of necessity, does not encourage people to question the source of their own faith outwardly. It frightens people and decreases involvement in Church activities.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I wanted to merge this thread with Soccermom's thread on guilt. I was thinking about what is taught about why the spirit will not be with you and that is that there is something out of sorts in your life. It is implicitly and explicitly taught that you cannot hear the spirit when you are leading your life incorrectly. For some, they start to question themselves when they are not having the same spiritual experiences as others. They start to wonder what is wrong with them. I think this can lead to feelings of guilt as they hash and rehash aspects of their lives and their interactions with others. They can start to feel that these are the reasons that they are not having the spiritual feelings that earnestly seek.

That's my pop psychology for the night. What you all think? Do you think that you are removed from spiritual experiences when your live is astray?