What Causes Loss of Testimony?

[wenglund]

What do these cliches have in common?: "Can't see the forest for the trees," "A prophet is without honor in his own country." " motes and beams," "One man's trash is another man's treasure," 

Here are a couple of visual hints:

 

I submit that the answer to the question above helps explain why many people lose faith in the restored gospel of Christ. .

The answer to the question above is....

 

PERSPECTIVE

 

Loss pf faith is often a product of losing proper perspective. If interested, I can explain the various ways I mean this, though I would be interested to first learn your perspectives

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

I'd say that the loss of testimony comes from loss of the Spirit.  But what causes the loss of Spirit?  I'd bet you're partially right.  Perspective must be a part of it.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

It's probably best to ask people who have actually lost their testimony. Not being sarcastic, honest statement. 

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's probably best to ask people who have actually lost their testimony. Not being sarcastic, honest statement. 

Stating the obvious can sometimes be unintentionally presumptuous. Not being sarcastic, just honest.

My observations are the result of multiple decades questioning numerous people who lost their testimonies. My observations also include multiple decades questioning numerous people who have successfully avoided losing their testimonies.  And, while each set of people have their own valuable perspectives, I have found that combining both provides a broader horizon of understanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd say that the loss of testimony comes from loss of the Spirit.  But what causes the loss of Spirit?  I'd bet you're partially right.  Perspective must be a part of it.

 

Very profound. I will feast on the delicious insights (pun intended) for the rest of the day. Feel free to expound on the analogy in relation to loss of faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's probably best to ask people who have actually lost their testimony. Not being sarcastic, honest statement. 

31 minutes ago, wenglund said:

My observations are the result of multiple decades questioning numerous people who lost their testimonies. My observations also include multiple decades questioning numerous people who have successfully avoided losing their testimonies.  And, while each set of people have their own valuable perspectives, I have found that combining both provides a broader horizon of understanding.

I think the parable of the seeds on the various soils breaks it down as best as anyone could.  The various types of soil could further be broken down to a million subcategories and have as many variations as there are individuals.  But we simply put them in categories to get our minds wrapped around them.

We can review:

I still hold that the bottom line is that we lose the Spirit.  If the Spirit is the basis of all testimony, then the loss of it must be the basis of a loss of testimony.  That seems like a logical statement.

1) Path: Hard ground, compacted from many people always walking on it.  Seeds never took root and got trampled before it even had a chance.
2) Stony Ground: Root and grew.  But such shallow roots didn't last long.
3) Thorny Area: Roots.  Grew.  But they were overpowered.
4) Good soil:  Everything was good.

So, what sorts of things does that translate into?  Here's my take.

1) People had hard hearts and never really accepted it in the first place.
2) People became interested.  But there was only "so much" that they could really accept of the word.  A part of them knew it was right.  But in the end, they chose another path.
3) They accepted it.  But they became overwhelmed by whatever issues.
4) No loss of testimony.  These guys made it.

I believe the first two categories are largely the investigators that never make it.  The third category is the greatest part of those who fall away.  And I've seen and heard so many stories in this vein.  It is difficult to really define why they leave.  Hence I said "whatever issues".  I have difficulty saying an over-riding cause.  But to try to list some would only scratch the surface.  So, it is pointless to try to start because most people would say, "no, that's not why so-n-so left."  There are simply too many to list.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

 So, it is pointless to try to start because most people would say, "no, that's not why so-n-so left."  There are simply too many to list.

Oh I agree totally. There is no "one size fits all" answer to this, for sure. Totally agree my friend. 

I'd like to say that keeping your testimony is as simple as reading the BoM, or doing "x" but the truth is that it's not that simple. 

[Guest Godless]

42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Loss of faith is often a product of losing proper perspective.

But who are you to say which perspective is the "proper" one? A new perspective doesn't automatically have to be incorrect or improper. Every now and then, we process information that could drastically alter our perspective. The decision that all individuals must make is how (or if) they'll allow that new information to change their worldview. For me, that moment came (ironically) during a missionary prep class when it was emphasized that the key to accepting the commandments of the Church (Wow, law of chastity, tithing, etc) is the knowledge and testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If you have that testimony, then the Church is true. And if the Church is true, then following the commandments will bring us blessings. Having been raised in the Church and taught from a very young age that we do/believe things because the prophet/God said so, I had never thought of the gospel in such simple terms, the terms we were meant to explain to investigators. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I actually didn't have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church. I had spent years wanting to believe (and earnestly convinced that I did) when in reality I just went through the motions because I didn't know anything else. Losing that was terrifying, but it ultimately gave me a sense of clarity that I had never enjoyed in the Church.

And I actually really like Carb's analogy, though my interpretation of it probably doesn't fit what was meant. For me, letting go of the gospel was like seeing for the first time. It felt very foreign, weird, and intimidating at first, but with time I came to understand how my new perspective allowed me to process and understand the world in ways that I never dreamed were possible. Sure, the hallway may look wrong at first, but once I explore it I'll see that my previous understanding of it was just a piece of a larger picture that I couldn't see before.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

Having been raised in the Church and taught from a very young age that we do/believe things because the prophet/God said so, I had never thought of the gospel in such simple terms, the terms we were meant to explain to investigators. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I actually didn't have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church. I had spent years wanting to believe (and earnestly convinced that I did) when in reality I just went through the motions because I didn't know anything else.

This is all too familiar and all too sad.

After this conversation, he let me know that he eventually left because he had never felt the Spirit in his life.  He said that he hoped that God would have some degree of forgiveness and understanding to those who simply don't have the ability to feel the Spirit.  (implying that he believed there may be a Holy Ghost.  But he simply didn't have the capacity to feel it just like a mentally retarded person simply doesn't have the capacity to understand college level physics).

I didn't pursue it at the time.  But it was very interesting to hear that only a month after I had pondered how I got out of that myself.  For years I thought I simply didn't have the ability.  And in many ways I didn't.  But there was still a path forward for me.  I just don't know if it would have worked for him.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'd say that the loss of testimony comes from loss of the Spirit.  But what causes the loss of Spirit?  I'd bet you're partially right.  Perspective must be a part of it.

 

One of the tasty morsels that I got from the "blind receiving sight" analogy, which also relates to "loss of the Spirit," has to do with using the right "senses" for the job. A blind person will typically use her ears and touch and even smell and taste to create a visual image in her mind's eye. And, while these other sense somewhat compensate for the lack of eyesight, they are unable to visualize things fully and correctly in the way the eyes can. 

The same holds true in principle between the physical and spiritual senses. The physical senses can provide a semblance of spiritual reality, but it is a poor substitute for what is possible from the spiritual senses.

Unbelief can cause both a lack of development in and disabling of the spiritual senses, which can rightly be described as loss of the spirit, thereby limiting one's capacity to completely or correctly "see" spiritual reality, leaving the recipients to assume there is no spiritual reality. In this case, seeing with just the physical eyes, is not believing. I see, but see not not, therefore I believe not. 

Such is the experience of many who rely heavily or exclusively on the arm of flesh (science, etc.) in discerning spiritual things. They do not have an accurate or full view in their mind's eye of God and the spiritual world around them, as they may discover were their spiritual eyes healed and they are made able to .see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 7, 2017 by wenglund
Clarity

[Vort]

I suppose I mourn the most for those choked by weeds -- though arguably these are the very people who had the most to do with their own torpedoed state. Review Matthew's testimony of the Lord's description of these:

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Or, as Mark has it:

And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

In Matthew's report, the Lord taught that the individual becomes unfruitful, while Mark reports that the Lord taught that the word of God becomes unfruitful. But it amounts to the same thing; The individual withers and dies spiritually, even after the word took root in his soul. And both agree that the Lord attributed this to two causes: "the care(s) of this world" and "the deceitfulness of riches" (and Mark adds, "the lusts of other things").

Are we overpowered by the cares of this world, including the mocking hordes in the great and spacious building? Do we cling to the truths we have received and gained testimony of, having seen them growing in our hearts? Or do we hearken instead to the clamoring voices from the outside, telling us exactly how stupid we are for giving ear to such foolishness?

Perhaps even more poisonous, are we deceived by riches? Do we believe that our happiness and salvation lie in our position in the word or the accumulation of things? Have we failed to take our covenants seriously, especially that pinnacle covenant of consecration, where we openly and permanently disavow any and all intent to accumulate things, and instead freely give our time, our talents, and all of our worldly goods to the growth and betterment of God's kingdom -- aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These are those in Lehi's and Nephi's vision who tasted of the fruit of the tree of life, but were then overcome by the mockery of those in the great and spacious building, who then "fell away into forbidden paths and were lost."

But what was lost can be found. Those whose short-sightedness, foolishness, or cowardice have led them to abandon those things of greatest worth can repent and reembrace them. It has become all the rage today for "progressive" Church members to abandon their convictions and demonstrate how "enlightened" they are to their worldly friends, both in and out of the Church. But I hope that many of these will yet repent, turn from their infidelities and abominations, and again embrace the saving truths they once knew.

[Guest Godless]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is all too familiar and all too sad.

After this conversation, he let me know that he eventually left because he had never felt the Spirit in his life.  He said that he hoped that God would have some degree of forgiveness and understanding to those who simply don't have the ability to feel the Spirit.  (implying that he believed there may be a Holy Ghost.  But he simply didn't have the capacity to feel it just like a mentally retarded person simply doesn't have the capacity to understand college level physics).

I didn't pursue it at the time.  But it was very interesting to hear that only a month after I had pondered how I got out of that myself.  For years I thought I simply didn't have the ability.  And in many ways I didn't.  But there was still a path forward for me.  I just don't know if it would have worked for him.

That's the funny thing about what you call "The Spirit", it's pretty subjective. I used every little ounce of faith I had to try to find that "confirmation of the Spirit" that Mormons talk about so much. It just wasn't there. Someone else could have been in that exact same situation and come out with a different result based on subtle differences in emotional perception.  

[Guest]

It is true that almost any analogy or almost any argument can be turned around and applied to support or decry anyone's position.  So, what is the primal or fundamental truth that lets us know which way is correct?

Two things:

Liberty and Peace.

Liberty is not just freedom.  It is freedom with responsibility.  Without the responsibility, it is licentiousness. Responsibility is the encouragement of each individual of his own fee will and choice doing that which needs to be done to make society better whether he gets any compensation or not.

Peace -- inner, spiritual peace comes in many levels.  To me it is the spiritual resonance analogy.  There is a truth out there.  And I believe that the three degrees of glory are about what level of truth our spirits resonate with.  When we find peace, we have found that our spirits resonate with a certain truth we've just learned.  If that truth is of a Telestial nature, we are Telestial spirits; if Terrestrial, then Terrestrial; if Celestial, then Celestial.

Take these two together and we find why we believe what we believe.

18 minutes ago, Godless said:

That's the funny thing about what you call "The Spirit", it's pretty subjective. I used every little ounce of faith I had to try to find that "confirmation of the Spirit" that Mormons talk about so much. It just wasn't there. Someone else could have been in that exact same situation and come out with a different result based on subtle differences in emotional perception.  

I know what it is like to never feel the Spirit.  I've been there.  I'll give you the analogy of the helicopter.

When we say that some truths simply cannot be learned by empirical data, that some things are discerned with the Spiritual eye and through revelation, we are saying that we can't get to a high mountain except by helicopter.  No vehicles can go up these slopes.  Too many trees block the path to walk up.  But what if you have a physical impairment that prevents you from using a helicpoter?  How can you ever hope to see that Golden City on top of the mountain?

To continue the analogy:

I saw the photos of the city that others brought back and decried the fact I couldn't go on the helicopter.  What was puzzling was that those who tried to describe it didn't make any sense.  The photos didn't match their descriptions.  Some things they said they saw were certainly nothing like any other part of the world.  Water would flow uphill?  That didn't make sense.  Why would I believe that?

But for some reason, even as I doubted, I hoped it was true.  But how could I ever know?

I decided that I'd have to climb the mountain.  But you can't even get into the helicopter, how can you hope to climb the mountain?  Because it's the only way.  Why would I be motivated to do so and others not?  I have no idea.  But I simply had this desire.  No matter what, I'd climb the mountain.

It was not easy to say the least.  When they said every path was impassable, they meant it.  How many chops with a machete does it take to get through a tree trunk 4 ft thick?  Bring a chainsaw and run out of gas.  Climb a tree 30 feet up so you can climb back down the same tree with snakes, spiders, and everything else on the other side just so you can make 6 ft of progress.  It would take forever to make it up there.  In fact, you die of starvation and dehydration before you ever could.

I didn't care.  For some reason I had to get up there.  But I'd fail and go back down to the bottom.  I'd rest up and really think hard about going back up the mountain.  After Five tries and almost dying in the process each time...

I finally found a point that I could climb upto.  It was nowhere near the top where the fabled city was.  But it was right atop a different peak where I had a pretty clear view in an opening in the objects blocking the view.  I climbed up there.  While it was just as hard as all the other paths I tried, It was one I could get up to because it was much closer.

When I got up there, I saw something that was glittering gold just like the city that others had described.  That made me feel like there was certainly something to all their stories.  I not only had hope, I had a real witness of the truth.

Since then, I found that there are secret paths up the mountain that let me get closer and closer.  And I've seen more and more as I glimpsed through the trees at a distance.  But I still haven't seen as clearly as those who go in the helicopter...

Until just this last week.  But that is a very personal experience.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Guest

[wenglund]

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

But who are you to say which perspective is the "proper" one?

It isn't so much "who" is to say, but "what" is to say. And, the "what," in this case is reason or common sense. In short, the "proper perspective" is the one that enables the viewer to best "see" things as they really are and as they were intended to be.

Quote

A new perspective doesn't automatically have to be incorrect or improper. Every now and then, we process information that could drastically alter our perspective. The decision that all individuals must make is how (or if) they'll allow that new information to change their worldview.

Agreed on all counts. But, that can work in two divergent ways.. Perspectives can be altered in a way that increases understanding as well as decrease or distort understanding. To me, proper perspective would entail the former, and not the later..

I am fascinated by your personal experience, and I would like to explore it more in-depth. Laying a conceptual framework of agreement first might help facilitate a mutually productive exploration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[wenglund]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

In Matthew's report, the Lord taught that the individual becomes unfruitful, while Mark reports that the Lord taught that the word of God becomes unfruitful. But it amounts to the same thing; The individual withers and dies spiritually, even after the word took root in his soul. And both agree that the Lord attributed this to two causes: "the care(s) of this world" and "the deceitfulness of riches" (and Mark adds, "the lusts of other things").

Beautifully said. 

Tying it back to perspective, We see and observe what it is we are looking at, and not the things we aren't--out of sight, out of mind. This may be more true for men with one-track minds, like me. Since childhood, it was difficult for me to see the vegetables, meat, and potatoes when there was cake and ice cream on the table.  

This is why keeping one's eyes single to the glory of God is so important. If one's attention is elsewhere, one may not see or hear Christ when he knocks at the door. One may not see the Savior when he is hungry and thirsty and a stranger (Mt 25:44) 

Looking elsewhere (i.e. not having the proper perspective) will cause a loss of faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is true that almost any analogy or almost any argument can be turned around and applied to support or decry anyone's position.  So, what is the primal or fundamental truth that lets us know which way is correct?

Two things:

Liberty and Peace.

Liberty is not just freedom.  It is freedom with responsibility.  Without the responsibility, it is licentiousness. Responsibility is the encouragement of each individual of his own fee will and choice doing that which needs to be done to make society better whether he gets any compensation or not.

Peace -- inner, spiritual peace comes in many levels.  To me it is the spiritual resonance analogy.  There is a truth out there.  And I believe that the three degrees of glory are about what level of truth our spirits resonate with.  When we find peace, we have found that our spirits resonate with a certain truth we've just learned.  If that truth is of a Telestial nature, we are Telestial spirits; if Terrestrial, then Terrestrial; if Celestial, then Celestial.

Take these two together and we find why we believe what we believe.

 

I would add a third and a fourth to your astute list: 3) Joy ("Men are that they might have joy"), and 4) growth or swelling of the soul (Alma 32). 

And, in addition to determining which is correct, I would test for whether it works as intended. Does the analogy, and the principles it is supposed to convey, expand the horizons of our understanding in a way that elevates us as people, or as we in the Church may suggest, will it draw us closer to Christ and enable us to become like him. "By their fruits ye shall know them." 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Godless]

26 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It isn't so much "who" is to say, but "what" is to say. And, the "what," in this case is reason or common sense. In short, the "proper perspective" is the one that enables the viewer to best "see" things as they really are and as they were intended to be.

At a certain point, however, the idea of "things as they really are and as they were intended to be" will fall under the subjective interpretations of human experience, especially where religion and worldviews are concerned. One of the most drastic changes in my worldview came in the way I viewed my mortality and purpose. I came to see the religious concept of eternal life as a man-made construct meant to help us deal with the reality of the fact that one day we're all going to die. My common sense told me that, in reality, life is the end of human consciousness, just as I always believed to be the case for all other forms of life. I never believed that plants or animals enjoyed any level of consciousnss beyond this mortal existence, so how did it make sense that humans would be able to transcend that? In that sense, my new perspective allowed me to see things as they really are in a way that made rational sense. 

26 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Agreed on all counts. But, that can work in two divergent ways.. Perspectives can be altered in a way that increases understanding as well as decrease or distort understanding. To me, proper perspective would entail the former, and not the later..

That's a difficult issue to tackle. Based on the example I listed above, many people would say that, by removing the concept of eternal progression from the equation, my understanding was decreased by my change in perspective. I would counter that dogmatic philosophies offer a perspective that creates an understanding with no rational, quantifiable basis. There are hundreds of religions in the world, hundreds of different belief sets surrounding our eternal existence. All because we fear dying. Our consciousness as a species demands a worldview in which we can overcome death, even if that worldview has no rational basis. But what if a new perspective reveals the fear of death to be irrational? The concept of eternity, in all its shapes and forms, suddenly seems rather unnecessary. In that sense, the simplification of my understanding of mortality leads to a better understanding of it. I still fear death (I'm human after all), but I recognize that it's an irrational fear that doesn't justify the need for something more. I've accepted the finality of my existence when death does come, because all of my reason and common sense tells me to. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I would add a third and a fourth to your astute list: 3) Joy ("Men are that they might have joy"), and 4) growth or swelling of the soul (Alma 32). 

And, in addition to determining which is correct, I would test for whether it works as intended. Does the analogy, and the principles it is supposed to convey, expand the horizons of our understanding in a way that elevates us as people, or as we in the Church may suggest, will it draw us closer to Christ and enable us to become like him. "By their fruits ye shall know them." 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Joy" to me is about peace.  And "whether it works as intended" or "fruits" is subjective.  If I get more money then it must be a true principle.  Uhmm.. that doesn't really ring true to me.  But to others...

I believe we simply are Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial.  And we'll always see truth through that lens.  But some have the ability to change the nature of that spirit to be able to resonate with a different level than we currently are.  Some simply never will.  

All results ("fruits") take time to measure.  And some are only truly known at final judgment.  And we will all reap what we sow.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Guest

[yjacket]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I suppose I mourn the most for those choked by weeds -- though arguably these are the very people who had the most to do with their own torpedoed state. Review Matthew's testimony of the Lord's description of these:

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Or, as Mark has it:

And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

In Matthew's report, the Lord taught that the individual becomes unfruitful, while Mark reports that the Lord taught that the word of God becomes unfruitful. But it amounts to the same thing; The individual withers and dies spiritually, even after the word took root in his soul. And both agree that the Lord attributed this to two causes: "the care(s) of this world" and "the deceitfulness of riches" (and Mark adds, "the lusts of other things").

Are we overpowered by the cares of this world, including the mocking hordes in the great and spacious building? Do we cling to the truths we have received and gained testimony of, having seen them growing in our hearts? Or do we hearken instead to the clamoring voices from the outside, telling us exactly how stupid we are for giving ear to such foolishness?

Perhaps even more poisonous, are we deceived by riches? Do we believe that our happiness and salvation lie in our position in the word or the accumulation of things? Have we failed to take our covenants seriously, especially that pinnacle covenant of consecration, where we openly and permanently disavow any and all intent to accumulate things, and instead freely give our time, our talents, and all of our worldly goods to the growth and betterment of God's kingdom -- aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

These are those in Lehi's and Nephi's vision who tasted of the fruit of the tree of life, but were then overcome by the mockery of those in the great and spacious building, who then "fell away into forbidden paths and were lost."

But what was lost can be found. Those whose short-sightedness, foolishness, or cowardice have led them to abandon those things of greatest worth can repent and reembrace them. It has become all the rage today for "progressive" Church members to abandon their convictions and demonstrate how "enlightened" they are to their worldly friends, both in and out of the Church. But I hope that many of these will yet repent, turn from their infidelities and abominations, and again embrace the saving truths they once knew.

Amen, brother . . preach on!

[yjacket]

One of the things I have learned in live is that the first step to having faith is the choice to have faith.

We have to choose to have faith and then after time our choice will be richly rewarded.  Sometimes the choice without the reward can last a very, very long time-maybe years or maybe even most of our life.  But eventually, that choice to believe is rewarded.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

I've spent some time thinking about these statements and what made me want to continue up the mountain that was completely impassable.

I was taken in by the world and riches and lust of other things.  But after really seeing all the world had to offer, I realized that it wasn't much.  I really saw no glory or joy in it.  Something deep inside said that there had to be something more.  And I don't believe it was the Spirit (not as I understand it).  And if there wasn't something more, the world was simply not enough.

But others, I suppose, think it is enough.  And they go on their happy lives believing so.  I just don't get how they can be satisfied with so little.

[wenglund]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

"Joy" to me is about peace.  And "whether it works as intended" or "fruits" is subjective.  If I get more money then it must be a true principle.  Uhmm.. that doesn't really ring true to me.  But to others...

In a way, all is subjective. One man's peace is another man's unease. And that is okay. The Spirit is a guide on an individual level as well as, and if not more so, on a collective level.

If getting more money doesn't ring true for you, what about getting more peace or knowledge or goodness or faith? The gospel is designed to enable us to come to Christ and become like him. It is the plan of progression. This means that if the principles of the gospel are true, then one should rightly progress in faith and come closer to Christ and become more like him. If the principles aren't true, then, as Alma explains:

" Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. " Alma 32:32

The beauty of this is, it helps satisfy the law of two witnesses--the witness of Moroni 10 is coupled with the witness of Alma 32. This way, the witness of the Spirit can't so easily be dismissed as induced human "emotion." The witness of the Spirit is backed up by growth that is good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

19 hours ago, Godless said:

At a certain point, however, the idea of "things as they really are and as they were intended to be" will fall under the subjective interpretations of human experience, especially where religion and worldviews are concerned. One of the most drastic changes in my worldview came in the way I viewed my mortality and purpose. I came to see the religious concept of eternal life as a man-made construct meant to help us deal with the reality of the fact that one day we're all going to die. My common sense told me that, in reality, life is the end of human consciousness, just as I always believed to be the case for all other forms of life. I never believed that plants or animals enjoyed any level of consciousnss beyond this mortal existence, so how did it make sense that humans would be able to transcend that? In that sense, my new perspective allowed me to see things as they really are in a way that made rational sense. 

Many have explored that line of reasoning, including Shakespeare by way of Hamlet, though not all have drawn the same conclusions as you. This is because the evidence for or against an afterlife is not even close to definitive, but open to considerable speculation one way or the other. 

For example, consider the conversation on this very point between a religionist (Duke Pesta) and an atheist (Stefan Molyneuax). Hopefully, it will be as enlightening to you as it was to me: 

 

The text of the grave scene can be read here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blueskye2]

On 2/7/2017 at 1:37 PM, Godless said:

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I actually didn't have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church. I had spent years wanting to believe (and earnestly convinced that I did) when in reality I just went through the motions because I didn't know anything else. Losing that was terrifying, but it ultimately gave me a sense of clarity that I had never enjoyed in the Church.

 

Similar for me. One day I had this brilliant idea that I didn't have to keep trying to believe, what I didn't believe. I wasn't terrified. I was happy as I'd ever been in my life. Felt more like a ten ton weight was lifted and I could finally breath. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Similar for me. One day I had this brilliant idea that I didn't have to keep trying to believe, what I didn't believe. I wasn't terrified. I was happy as I'd ever been in my life. Felt more like a ten ton weight was lifted and I could finally breath. 

I felt it too.  But it was very temporary as I began questioning my new reality.  When I put it under the same microscope I put my earlier ideology, I found it no more enlightening than my previous one.  In fact, I found it hypocritical as well.