Sin and Loss of the Spirit

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I believe that what she said is incorrect doctrine.  And you are advocating that we speaking incorrect doctrine is acceptable if it helps someone repent.  She may not have known it was false.  But I would think that you do. Do you?

I want to believe despite how the manner in which you are pursuing this makes me feel (which I realize is my problem, and not yours) that you are motivated by a desire to defend the truth and purity of doctrine. But you don't need to go after that goal here and now with me. I'm no threat to you. At no time during my participation in this thread have I criticized you, my fellow forum members, nor the doctrine. I have only chosen to defend the writer's intentions and what I believe the results of her writing can be. On the off chance that *the manner in which I pursued* that objective made you feel it necessary to turn from criticizing the writer to investigating my doctrinal fidelity (which of course would rightfully be your problem, not mine) then I apologize here and now, if it helps. I said what I had to say and I'm asking you to merely disagree with it, as I did yours. We are, I suppose, brothers and sisters in the gospel and in terms of doctrine; and for my part this development in the conversation is unnecessarily potentially contentious. I expect that you and I will have ample opportunities as time goes on to disagree and argue in as friendly a way as we can manage, but I've no interest in participating in disagreements and argumentation regarding the doctrine or my own unworthiness compared to that of others. Seriously, all my best.

 

[Grunt]

Not to derail the discussion, but is there a place I can read this doctrine and its meaning?

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I had a friend who thought Canadians were peaceful, friendly, compassionate and mellow. I said to him "Never seen a hockey fight, huh kid?" 

(I'm kidding @Sunday21! You know I have nothing but love for you, your country and hockey!) 

Too true! In my high school you could tell the hockey players. No front teeth. Tim Horton was a hockey player!

[Snigmorder]

30 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not to derail the discussion, but is there a place I can read this doctrine and its meaning?

Here's a talk by David A. Bednar which goes into this concept.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/that-we-may-always-have-his-spirit-to-be-with-us?lang=eng

If you don't have the LDS gospel library app yet, I would suggest you get it. It's full of church resources that can help you.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Here's a talk by David A. Bednar which goes into this concept.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/that-we-may-always-have-his-spirit-to-be-with-us?lang=eng

If you don't have the LDS gospel library app yet, I would suggest you get it. It's full of church resources that can help you.

Thank you.  it appears LDS has an app for everything.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Mike said:

I want to believe despite how the manner in which you are pursuing this makes me feel (which I realize is my problem, and not yours) that you are motivated by a desire to defend the truth and purity of doctrine. But you don't need to go after that goal here and now with me. I'm no threat to you. At no time during my participation in this thread have I criticized you, my fellow forum members, nor the doctrine. I have only chosen to defend the writer's intentions and what I believe the results of her writing can be. On the off chance that *the manner in which I pursued* that objective made you feel it necessary to turn from criticizing the writer to investigating my doctrinal fidelity (which of course would rightfully be your problem, not mine) then I apologize here and now, if it helps. I said what I had to say and I'm asking you to merely disagree with it, as I did yours. We are, I suppose, brothers and sisters in the gospel and in terms of doctrine; and for my part this development in the conversation is unnecessarily potentially contentious. I expect that you and I will have ample opportunities as time goes on to disagree and argue in as friendly a way as we can manage, but I've no interest in participating in disagreements and argumentation regarding the doctrine or my own unworthiness compared to that of others. Seriously, all my best.

Fair enough.  You are correct.  You've always been a very polite person on this forum.  It's somewhat difficult for those such as I who are accustomed to conflict in our lives.  I suppose I do owe you an apology for being abrasive in my comments.  I apologize.  So, allow me to make the point in a less abrasive manner.

Here is the underlying point of those who would disagree with you.

The main statement that everyone disagrees with (paraphrased) 

Quote

I just can't stomach the idea that if people sin the Spirit or presence of Christ will leave them.  One Dangerous and Completely Untrue Thing THAT MORMONS NEED TO STOP BELIEVING.

I really don't think that you believe that telling people that "sin causes a withdrawal of the Spirit" is an incorrect statement.  I don't think you believe that this is false.  I would believe that you take this statement to be true.

I simply don't believe she is justified in making such a statement.   It is false doctrine to want to spread it.

[zil]

FWIW, while the article may not lead someone to sin, I worry that it could make someone comfortable in their sins, and thus delay repentance.  After all, if you "know" the Spirit is there (it's just that you can't feel it right now), then you're going to think things like, "As long as the Spirit's still here, he won't let me go too far, and won't let anything really bad happen to me." and other nonsense (think of all those stories in the Book of Mormon about people justifying their sins and following those who preached falsehoods as a way to justify sin).

I really do think the Spirit goes away.  God cannot help but be aware of everything, but I think in this case, it's from a distance, cuz the Spirit doesn't wanna be there (and who can blame him).  And when this happens, it's all the easier for evil spirits to move in and bombard the sinner with thoughts that will keep them in sin.

We don't have to devise ways of terrorizing people, but we ought not to shy away from the truth, and we can both teach the consequences of sin, and the fact that repentance is always freely available to anyone willing to turn to the Lord, regardless of what they've done.

[Mike]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Here is the underlying point of those who would disagree with you. The main statement that everyone disagrees with (paraphrased) 

Quote

I just can't stomach the idea that if people sin the Spirit or presence of Christ will leave them.  One Dangerous and Completely Untrue Thing THAT MORMONS NEED TO STOP BELIEVING.

I really don't think that you believe that telling people that "sin causes a withdrawal of the Spirit" is an incorrect statement.  I don't think you believe that this is false.  I would believe that you take this statement to be true.

I simply don't believe she is justified in making such a statement.   It is false doctrine to want to spread it.

You are correct that I believe the verity of "sin causes a withdrawal of the Spirit". I think in this case that paraphrasing the writer's words and/or mingling the title of her article with other parts of her article is inappropriate.  

Quote

Youth in the Church are accustomed to hearing the idea that if they go certain places and do certain things, the Spirit or presence of Christ will leave them. This is 100 percent my simple opinion and I really have no authority, but I just can’t stomach that idea.

While I don't know whether the wording of the title was wholly hers or whether the editor had anything to do with it as an attention "grabber" I dislike it. I recall that TFP said earlier in this thread that the article lost him at "These little sisses..."; and likewise if I had looked at an open magazine and had seen an article with that title it would of lost me at the beginning because I would have disliked the gratuitous provocative feel of it. I would have resented being included in an assumption in such a venue that there is something Mormons need to stop believing--I'm sure you'll agree the reason is obvious. 

As for Ms. Card's inability to stomach an idea I take it as just that, i.e. a feeling and I give her credit for telling me, the reader, that she is offering her simple *opinion* without claiming anything like authority as she tells me how she feels. In other words as an author she freely accepts my right to freely take or leave what she has to say.

You say, "It is false doctrine to want to spread it." Not really accurate, but just as I give Ms. Card some leeway I do the same for you because I think I understand where you're coming from. I know what you mean. I would not say what Ms. Card said. I would not deliberately contradict scripture or inspired remarks made by prophets and apostles, and I know the difference between opinion and spreading false doctrine. Moreover, if I were acquainted with Ms. Card and in a position to offer my advice to her I would have told her that choosing her words more carefully might allow her to reach a larger number of people with her message, and helped bring people to Christ--which I believe is the intent of her heart. I hope you find my response to you to be satisfactory.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would have told her that choosing her words more carefully might allow her to reach a larger number of people with her message, and helped bring people to Christ

No, I think just calling her an idiot is a much better way.  (Kidding).

Yes, of course, a more compassionate and less judgmental way of approaching it would have been better.  And I thank cooler heads like yours to keep us in line.

[Sunday21]

12 hours ago, Grunt said:

Not to derail the discussion, but is there a place I can read this doctrine and its meaning?

Dear Mr. Grunt. Not sure if someone has mentioned this-probably! Mormon.org is good for questions. AskGramps also answers questions but is not official part of church organization. If you search the answers on AskGramps, you learn some interesting stuff.

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I think just calling her an idiot is a much better way.  (Kidding).

Yes, of course, a more compassionate and less judgmental way of approaching it would have been better.  And I thank cooler heads like yours to keep us in line.

Well, you're kind to compliment me that way. And I feel compelled to return the compliment for your willingness to suffer me.

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Dear Mr. Grunt. Not sure if someone has mentioned this-probably! Mormon.org is good for questions. AskGramps also answers questions but is not official part of church organization. If you search the answers on AskGramps, you learn some interesting stuff.

They have, thank you.  Sometimes it is difficult for me to ascertain the practice from the scripture, though.  They don't always seem to coincide and/or I don't always find the answer I'm looking for.  Often I'd just prefer to hear it from the point of view of someone who practices it.  If this is unwelcome here, I can look elsewhere. 

I have a literal plethora (can that be a thing) of websites I read, plus I'm up to Mosiah in my reading.   This is the only forum I've found, though.

[Jane_Doe]

37 minutes ago, Grunt said:

They have, thank you.  Sometimes it is difficult for me to ascertain the practice from the scripture, though.  They don't always seem to coincide and/or I don't always find the answer I'm looking for.  Often I'd just prefer to hear it from the point of view of someone who practices it.  If this is unwelcome here, I can look elsewhere. 

You're always welcome to ask :).  

37 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I have a literal plethora (can that be a thing) of websites I read, plus I'm up to Mosiah in my reading.   

Awesome!

Edited July 21, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Mike]

As a parent (of now adult children) I am grateful that I must do no more than imagine the fears that might have occupied the minds of Ms. Card’s parents after the modeling talent-scout approached her and she subsequently left home; the sorrow upon later learning the dreaded news: she had committed and was suffering the results of sins. And then the self-imposed guilt as they asked themselves, as parents will, what they could have done more. 

On the other hand my own heart swells to imagine the subsequent joy they would have felt knowing that she embraced the reality of the law of repentance, and especially that she trusted what they had undoubtedly taught her and which she undoubtedly came to know in own heart—that God loves her and wants her back.  Some of us are fortunate to have something (in our make-up ?) that allows us to navigate without having to know by experience the prodigal's errors. I recall an uncle's funeral decades ago and listening to a cousin recount her sorrow and frustration for having been a child who seemed to never learn but by burning her own hand--like some others of us. I suppose for all my gratitude none of us is "home free" until we get home free so to speak. 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Moreover, if I were acquainted with Ms. Card and in a position to offer my advice to her I would have told her that choosing her words more carefully might allow her to reach a larger number of people with her message, and helped bring people to Christ--which I believe is the intent of her heart.

 

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

On the other hand my own heart swells to imagine the subsequent joy they would have felt knowing that she embraced the reality of the law of repentance, and especially that she trusted what they had undoubtedly taught her and which she undoubtedly came to know in own heart—that God loves her and wants her back.  Some of us are fortunate to have something (in our make-up ?) that allows us to navigate without having to know by experience the prodigal's errors.

Intention alone does not excuse the false teaching she preached.  And no, this is not some "poorly worded" mistake on her part.  This is what she believes is Not True that she wants Mormons to stop believing.  For her to have gone through the entire process of repentance and to still think that is Not True makes @Sunday21's succint descriptor of "idiot" applicable even as it is devoid of compassion.

But, we don't have to excuse her error just so we can assuage our compassion.  Jesus made no bones about overturning tables even as he is perfect in compassion.  No, he wouldn't have called the money changers idiots but he overturned their tables nonetheless.  We can call out her false teaching as just that - false - without having to make excuses for her error.  She is, plain and simply, wrong and needs to be called out so that her readers will know the false teaching spread by a member of the Church.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But, we don't have to excuse her error just so we can assuage our compassion.  Jesus made no bones about overturning tables even as he is perfect in compassion.  No, he wouldn't have called the money changers idiots but he overturned their tables nonetheless.  We can call out her false teaching as just that - false - without having to make excuses for her error.  She is, plain and simply, wrong and needs to be called out so that her readers will know the false teaching spread by a member of the Church.

No, you don't have to excuse her at all. And I suppose the scriptures are replete with so many stories to make application practical that we have a huge library to study. While at the moment it pleases you to focus upon over turning tables, I pleases me to focus upon the woman taken in sin (and casting stones), and the prodigal's return, just as examples. So, I'm not going to dispute your choice: "call (out) away".

 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

 imagine the fears that might have occupied the minds of Ms. Card’s parents after the modeling talent-scout approached her and she subsequently left home; the sorrow upon later learning the dreaded news: she had committed and was suffering the results of sins.

How do you know this?  Her admission does not go into such details.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

How do you know this?  Her admission does not go into such details.

I don't know it. But the thread motivated me view a KSL television piece about her, and I watched a short little video where she talked about her experience. Moreover, I used reference to her merely to express my feelings in terms of parents, children, sin and repentance and my gratitude for my Savior. 

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

They have, thank you.  Sometimes it is difficult for me to ascertain the practice from the scripture, though.  They don't always seem to coincide and/or I don't always find the answer I'm looking for.  Often I'd just prefer to hear it from the point of view of someone who practices it.  If this is unwelcome here, I can look elsewhere. 

I have a literal plethora (can that be a thing) of websites I read, plus I'm up to Mosiah in my reading.   This is the only forum I've found, though.

We are delighted to have you and welcome your questions. I know what you mean about the difference between practice and scripture! Good luck with Mosiah!

Edited July 21, 2017 by Sunday21

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, you don't have to excuse her at all. And I suppose the scriptures are replete with so many stories to make application practical that we have a huge library to study. While at the moment it pleases you to focus upon over turning tables, I pleases me to focus upon the woman taken in sin (and casting stones), and the prodigal's return, just as examples. So, I'm not going to dispute your choice: "call (out) away".

 

Sure.  But, I felt that you called out @Carborendum for pointing out the error in her teaching and tried to defend her false teaching to Carb.  If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  But, I felt that you called out @Carborendum for pointing out the error in her teaching and tried to defend her false teaching to Carb.  If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

Then I'll accept that

 

[askandanswer]

15 hours ago, Grunt said:

Not to derail the discussion, but is there a place I can read this doctrine and its meaning?

I admire your inquiring mind and willingness to learn. 

[Guest]

I know I was the one who posted the link to the article in the first place.  But I've had some time to think about this.  I believe the difficulty that is being discussed here can be resolved by a simple understanding.

Quote

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matt 7:23

Compare to the JST which says:

Quote

And then will I say, Ye never knew me; depart from me ye that work iniquity.

JST Matt 7:33

Notice that the BoM version of this same passage mimics the KJV of the same verse, not the JST.  However, it is this difference that I want to expound on.  Many of the passages that Joseph "corrected" were not corrections at all.  They were commentary or clarifications.  What was in the KJV may actually be the best literal translation of what Matthew actually wrote.  But Joseph was correcting the meaning that people might take from it that wasn't exactly correct.

When a "saying" goes around "I never knew you" or "the Spirit leaves" it is very easy to believe that the one on the side of leaving or abandonment is the Lord.  But reading the "clarification" that Joseph wrote, we have a clearer understanding that it is indeed we who do the leaving.  It is we who never knew the Lord when we choose to sin.  At the same time, I don't think that Matthew or Nephi were writing it wrong.  Nor do I believe the Lord said it wrong in either case.  Instead, it was a matter of figurative speech vs technical speech.  Let me explain.

I was once in a situation where I decided to charge bullheaded into sin.  And it was a pretty serious sin.  At some point, I felt a physical sensation all over my body as if something was being ripped away.

When I noticed it, I had to pause wondering what on earth that was.  All I knew was that something was seriously wrong.  I stopped everything.  I thought for a while.  I was dazed, confused, afraid, etc.  I didn't think straight.  I just wanted this "wrong" feeling to end.  I went back home and pondered on the situation for a while.  I finally realized that it was the Spirit leaving me.  Once I made that realization and felt, well, pretty stupid for what I had done, I felt "warm" again, like my clothing had returned.

This entire experience could easily be described as "The Spirit Left Me."  So, that was a very accurate description as far as the perception of the one experiencing it.  But technically, as is obvious from my narrative, it was I who decided to leave the Lord -- not the other way around. It is the difference between the perception/feeling on the part of the individual in the situation vs. the objective view of things.

In this sense, I now understand what the author was saying. And I believe her eventual statements were in fact more objective.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Guest

[Sunday21]

@Carborendum. I had the exact same experience in a very similar situation. I had returned to church activity and I was planning on doing something that to my semiathesist mind seemed ok. I get now how wrong I was. Very wrong. I felt the spirit rip itself away from me. I felt cold all over and very, very alone. I had not felt so horribly alone for a very long time. This experience instantly shocked me and sobered me up pronto.

Firstly I realized that a lot of my ability to function was not me - it was me with help.

Secondly, I realized that my happy feeling was in part because I had an entity other than myself living inside me.

Thirdly, I realized that this entity had rules that I needed to follow. This was not the warm liberal religiosity that I was familiar with from living in a largely secular world. I am not sure how to describe the form of faith that I imagined vs the type of faith that I was actually involved in. It had never occurred to me before that the rules were real and that the consequences were real. This was a completely different way of thinking and behaving. The liberal world that I had living in, where truth was relative, was not the real world. It was a lie and an illusion. My whole concept of what constituted the 'real world' changed. 

 

[Guest]

One wonders if there is a word for converts from sectarians to Mormonism that would be parallel to Judaizers.