[Zina D. Huntington] when only fifteen years old was baptized by the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, August 14th, 1835, and soon after went to Kirtland with her father’s family. In this year she received the gift of tongues. On one occasion in the Kirtland Temple she heard a whole invisible choir of angels singing, till the house seemed filled with numberless voices. At Kirtland she received the gift of interpretation. She was also at the memorable Pentecost when the spirit of God filled the house like a mighty, rushing wind.
Alternative spiritual paths for Mormon women fascinate me. In light of the connection of early Mormonism and esotericism, I’m not surprised when I encounter members of the Church who are drawn to the Goddess movement, eastern forms of spirituality, healing, divination, and even folk magic. Since I seem to be drawn to people who are just a bit different that the mainstream in their approach to spirituality, I have been able to observe how some of them interact with the Church. Alternative forms of spirituality which might have been welcomed in the early Church are plainly discouraged today. Church leaders are uncomfortable with women who desire to use spiritual gifts such as healing, tongues, prophecy, and others.
I have seen a few different paths taken by women who feel a strong inclination toward alternative spirituality. Those who remain in the Church often go “underground” with their practices, muting or hiding them. Although they see their spiritualism as compatible with Mormon teaching, there is a danger in its public expression.
I’m dismayed that more and more of these women eventually leave the Church. From my associations with them, I can’t believe that there was anything intrinsically wrong in their practices that would have caused this disassociation. Rather, as they become stronger and more confident with their gifts there develops an incompatibility with their fellow members and with Church leadership.
As the Church has sought legitimacy, it has moved closer to the trend of Western spirituality to be influenced by secularism. Self-oriented forms of spirituality, issues of the divine feminine and Gnostic conceptions of wisdom were all important in early Mormonism but suppressed today. This suppression tends to reinforce the patriarchal Church. Esoteric spiritual gifts manifest themselves throughout the population and promote equality. As these have been discouraged, male spirituality has expressed itself as priesthood leadership and female spirituality is recognized primarily when used in self-subjugating service and home-based connections.
Do any of you bloggers feel drawn toward alternative expressions of your spirituality? Do you feel constrained by your Church membership? Do you see this as a feminist issue?
Wheat & Tares 
Did’t Zina follow the saints west and play a prominent role in the church all her days?
The post starts out talking about her gifts of the Spirit and then moves to a discussion of eastern forms of religious belief (where Christ is not the central figure).
To my knowledge, Zina followed Christ all her days and never hinted at the idea of “alternative” religious thought.
Please correct me if I’m missing something.
I am very drawn to the “born again/Bible-believing Christian” way of focusing on Jesus Christ. In the context of your post, I guess that means I am drawn away from expressions of my faith that are ritualistic or outward. Therefore, no – I am not drawn to alternative/Eastern/etc. Religious practices.
BiV:
I don’t think it’s a feminist issue, since I see similar examples applied to “spiritual gifts” whether expressed by males or females in all but the evangelicals. The priestly is always at war with the prophetic from ancient Israel onward.
I did use the words “eastern forms” of spirituality, but I included them in the larger category of mysticism. I see the early Church as very invested in mysticism of many different kinds. Zina’s experiences seemed to exemplify this, with her use of the gift of tongues (glossalalia), interpretation, healing, and other Pentacostal manifestations. My point was that this mysticism was welcome in the early church, and it has come to be suspect in the Church today. Thus, Jared, what was acceptable in Nauvoo is seen as “alternative” in 2010 Mormonism. Jared, if you saw a woman in your ward using the same forms of spiritual expression as Zina did, would you feel that she was out of line? How do you feel about those whose worship of Christ draws them into forms of spirituality which are more “pentacostal” or “eastern” than what is typical in a modern ward?
BiV–
I’m all for the manifestations of the Spirit as came to Zina. We would have more manifestation in the church today if we weren’t so distracted by the things of the world.
Years ago, I spoke with Daisy Olsen (her husband wrote a book on the Logan Temple), she told me when she was young the gift of tongues was manifest in her ward on occasion. She could tell when someone had received this gift because the bench she sat on would shake because when the Spirit came upon someone they would quake, stand and either speak in an unknown tongue or interpret the tongue.
Then it all stopped, she understood it was due to the local leaders receiving complaints from members.
She told that to me about 20 years ago–when she was pushing ninety years of age.
By the way, The Logan Temple: First Hundred Years, is the book her husband wrote. It is brim full of stories of spiritual manifestations regarding the building and managing of the temple.
BIV:
This seems to be somewhat of a touchy subject. At FMH there was a post wondering why women didn’t have the priesthood. SOmeone pointed out that women seemed to be unsteady in these matters and tend to gravitate toward these “alternative spiritual paths” such as witchcraft and goddess worhsip and you also have women who stay true to the faith and do not wander in forbidden paths. Interesting post, though.
Interesting post. What comes to mind is Corinne Wares book on spiritual types. Her theory is that there are four main types of spiritual types, almost like personality types. The types can be summed as: Type 1-Head, Type 2-Heart, Type 3-Mystic/Contemplative, Type 4-Kingdom (as in Building the Kingdom).
There is a good picture that explains the four types in this article. I’m not recommending the article, just found the picture in it:
http://www.metanoia.org/martha/writing/spiritualtype.htm
A good summary can be found here:
http://www.youthministry.org.nz/?sid=134
What I find interesting is that the purpose of typing isn’t just to get to know yourself, but is to understand the call to wholeness.
In my view, if an “alternative” spirituality leads you to live more fully God’s greatest desire for you (grow in discipleship, love God, love others, develop your gifts and talents, and grow strong in faith and service), then that’s great as I believe that there are many paths “home.” However, if the alternative path becomes a means of escape or keeps one from these, then I don’t think it is helpful. Of course, I could say the same thing for the “traditional” path.
#6 Jon: You’re right, it probably is a touchy subject, as I am certainly feeling touchy after reading your comment. In this post I am trying to establish alternative spiritual paths as legitimate methods of worshipping and serving God and Jesus. Though not recognized in today’s Church, they proliferated in Joseph’s day. And here you are equating this with witchcraft and forbidden paths and saying that women tend to gravitate to this rather than “staying true” to the faith. I feel like your comment is an illustration of why many women feel they have to hide their spiritual gifts.
TH, I enjoyed a presentation at Sunstone one year by Susan Skoor on the different spiritual types. I found it fascinating. I think it has plenty to do with why some are drawn to a more mystical form of worship. I’m still not sure whether women are more drawn to certain spiritual types than men, so I can’t tell if this is a feminist issue or more of an authority vs plebian one.
And who, exactly, is deciding whether the more mystical, pentacostal elements should be shunned? Is it really coming from the higher echelon in the Church, or is it just the common ward member whose disdain effectively shuts down the mystically inclined?
Ah, I see Jon as the perfect example of what you are talking about! Very nice of him to illustrate your point. I must say, I am in full agreement with you. I do see the men being herded away from the same forms of worship. As for myself, in places where I feel my faith manifesting in ways that are out of the “norm” for the Church population, I generally keep them to myself, rather than to cast pearls before those who might misunderstand them. I hope that makes sense!
It is not just women of the church who seek out alternative views of spirituality, Those who do study Buddhism, mysticism, and other “alternative” forms of spirituality typically do so as they feel its condoned and even supported by statements such as “we embrace truth wherever it can be found”, “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole” and “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” With that, members of the church can find their understanding of gospel principles enhanced by gaining new perspectives into gospel truths and greater reliance on following the promptings of the Spirit. Thus, they feel they can get closer to God and become more Christlike through their efforts. BIV, its nice to read that you are supportive of your peers as they attempt to do this but its pretty scary the condemnation that is being communicated by some of your commenters.
biv: early and contemporary mormon women who gravitate towards more “mystical” forms of worship and navigation of their relationship with the divine have pretty good historical precedent. mystical and/or ecstatic devotional practices were turned to by later medieval women at a far greater rate than their male counterparts (though there were loads of male mystics too) as a way, in part, of establishing a personal relationship with the divine that circumvented ecclesiastical structures and rituals performed and controlled by men. of course, while initially accepted, eventually as more and more women adopted these types of practices and formed their own communities, authorities became worried and started to crack down either by focusing on regulating and/or banning their communities (like the beguines) or inserting themselves as a church-sanctioned mediator between the woman and God whose directives had to be followed (the confessors of numerous saints).
i guess my point is that the phenomenon you describe isn’t new. the question is whether or not women are somehow hardwired for “mystical” devotion or whether its a devotional path they tend to follow because it’s often the only one really open to them in patriarchal religions. i vote for the latter.
All of us can do as we like. The Lord has given each of us agency. He has also given us clear direction and opportunity to develop spiritually.
We have all we need to realize the greatest reward possible–eternal life (D&C 14:7). Eternal life is to have all that the Father has (D&C 84:38). What more is there? What more could we desire?
This is all available to each of us if we will follow Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon. We having living prophets as well, to help us deal with the issues and challenges of our day. Why go anywhere else, or study another religion or choose any other way than what we’ve been given?
Regarding “mystical forms of worship”: acquiring the gift of the Holy Ghost is the summum bonum of worship. If we don’t realize that then we haven’t fulfilled our baptism covenant to date.
I would urge anyone considering leaving the doctrines of the restoration to pursue another religion, to first make sure they’ve given diligent effort to fulfilling their baptism covenant.
Jared, is it leaving the doctrines when one supplements the doctrine with additional truths? Do you really think its one or the other, all or nothing? A major symptom of this day and age is black and white thinking. Thank you for the caution and encouragement to hold to the rod and keeping the baptismal covenant. I’ll assert that can be done while simultaneously finding truth wherever it can be found. That quest can also strengthen, inform and enrich the experience of living the commandments and make one more like Christ.
Zillah, thank you for that comment. When ones gender is missing, hidden or obscure in Divinity, it is hard to find one’s way to become like a Deity not of her gender. Its like a carrot on a stick to know there is a Mother in Heaven but then have any additional knowledge of her hidden away. If the church does not provide a path to seek and find her, its seems a given that part of a woman’s supplemental gospel study will be to seek her in the alternative paths being discussed here.
Women and everyone else should have caution when seeking alternative spiritual paths. Temptation is everywhere and it’s quite easy to be tempted toward forbidden paths.
There you go again with the forbidden paths. In my post, I specifically mentioned Diantha Huntington (and there were many others like her) to show that spiritual gifts and their mystical manifestations were quite acceptable in the early Church. What has changed since then, to make them forbidden today?
We all have an innate desire to touch the Divine. At the same time, we are all individuals, with unique personalities, unique backgrounds, unique life-experiences. We are always going to find different paths resonate with us better – hence some people switching TO the LDS Church, while others switch AWAY.
With regard to “forbidden paths” – the LDS Church does not have an exclusive lock on all truth. There have been times in my life where I struggled. I tried all of the “classic” LDS ways of dealing with this – fasting, prayer, scriptures, etc. But I still struggled. I happened to find that Buddhism helped more than anything else. I have incorporated a great deal of Buddhist thoughts and practices into my life, and guess what, I feel MUCH great peace than I ever did before. I feel closer to God. I feel closer to my fellowman. I’m still active in the Church. I still hold callings and have a temple recommend, etc. But my life and spirituality is more complete.
Before a blanket rejection of everything not in the LDS box as “forbidden paths”, perhaps we should do as Paul commanded: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
Also, JS said that if you don’t seek out truth from other places, your not a “true” Mormon. It doesn’t seem like Jared is saying seeking out truth outside the LDS box is dangerous, only that one should be careful not to abandon the doctrines of the gospel in the process. Is that correct Jared?
And with regard to women in the LDS Church / priesthood / etc., who knows where things will go. Perhaps the best example of this is blacks and the priesthood. For decades, we taught that blacks could NOT have the priesthood on a doctrinal basis. We had apostles and prophets teaching that they were “fence-sitters” and would never have the priesthood until after the end of the Millennium. But at the end of the day, it was NOT doctrinal, but was merely social customs institutionalized into the Church organization.
Look at the role of women in the early days of the LDS Church and it appears very similar. At that time, women couldn’t vote. They couldn’t own property. In polygamy, they were treated much like property with a woman being able to be “given” to another man, without divorce, merely because he held a higher office in the hierarchy. They were very much like single mothers with an absentee father. Is it any wonder that, like blacks, women were forbidden from the priesthood.
And interestingly, as restored by JS, both women and blacks had less restrictions. JS ordained people to the priesthood WITHOUT regard for their race. In JS day, we have all of these marvelous experiences involving women. It seems that BY restructured things in his strict hierarchal fashion, limiting the roles of women and blacks, etc.
So, what we are really seeing are the continued echoes of BY. As referenced in another recent post, there is actually historical precedence for women having a much bigger role in the church than they currently do. Hopefully, like we did with blacks and the priesthood, we will see something in this area as well.
BiV,
Book suggestions?
#13 Anonymous asked: is it leaving the doctrines when one supplements the doctrine with additional truths?
There are different kinds of truths. The doctrines of the restoration are designed to lead us into the presence of God. Some truths lead us to God, others lead us to destinations less desirable, but still kingdoms of glory. Each of us needs to be wise as to which truths we hold dearest.
21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot babide a celestial glory.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:21 – 22)
#17 Adam F-
I just saw your comment.
I agree with what you’re saying. All truth is valuable, we need to determine which we’re going to embrace.
The truths contained in the law of Christ (doctrine of Christ)when obeyed will allow us to obtain a place that is the most desirable. We’re told this by our Father who wouldn’t deceive us and has our best interest in all that He does.
When it comes to women & priesthood, I think that at some point we’ll have a “Dorothy moment” like at the end of the movie when Glinda the Good Witch says: “But Dorothy, you had the power all along!” But there is also a huge difference, IMO, between the administrative offices of the priesthood and the power of the priesthood. Women do have spiritual power equal to men; different people have different spiritual gifts. It is not restricted by priesthood. But those who focus on the administrative aspect of priesthood may fail to recognize spiritual gifts.
Having said all that, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pentacostal manifestations of the early church. I think I would be like the onlookers in Acts on the day of Pentecost saying, “These men are full of new wine.” I think I am too secular and too rational to want much of that in my church experience. But to each his own. Let your freak flag fly.
What was common in their day is frowned upon today.
If I were to show my Sunday school class how to use a Divining Rod or how to focus on a Seer stone until they could see little lights dancing around, and then show you how to discern yes/no answers from the lights.
I’d definitely get released, be labeled a quack, and maybe even end up in a church court.
Yet if we were to whip out the ol’ book of commandments and early editions of D&C we’d find this in a revelation to Oliver Cowdery:
Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God.
Liken the scriptures unto yourself, unless it’s early frontier white magic mingled with Mormonism?
Personally I’m tired of sacrificing spirituality so we can look a little less freaky to the world. When it comes down to it, that’s exactly whats happened.
The sad thing is that the sisters had an overflow of spirituality in the early church, so much so that they would get together in Nauvoo and speak in tongues while quilting and doing average house hold things. This didn’t go unnoticed and Joseph thought to focus these spiritual talents in the relief society. He set apart sisters to be healers, he focused their spirituality in a way to help all those around them.
As long as there’s a correlation committee to sweep old school Mormon female spiritualism under the rug and keep it out of the lesson books, sisters will look elsewhere for spiritual venues or fall inline submitting to priesthood for their spiritual bread.
TH – Your reference to the spirituality “types” was very helpful. Thanks. I could probably write an entire article just starting with that premise.
I seem to be more like BiV in that I trend towards the abstract and feeling (contemplative/mystic) in my religious observance, but away from the thinking or authoritative structures. Thus, Eastern religions such as Buddhism hold little appeal to me in that they tend to have something you need to conceptually learn to apply them. I used to find a place for that contemplation in the celestial room of the temple. I trend now more to personal rituals.
I relate what BiV is saying here a lot to Exponent II’s Alisa’s descriptions of personal rituals and Blessingways as a way of acting on “feminine” spirituality. Some examples can be found here: http://www.the-exponent.com/author/alisa/
The LDS church is largely comprised of many “concrete thinker” types in TH’s pie graph. Individuals with that spiritual type are probably likely to react very strongly and poorly to rituals such as Alisa describes above. However, it is worth noting, as BiV has, that an examination of the early religious experience in the Mormon church seem to indicate that abstract-feeling and concrete-thinking forms of spirituality were at one time more acceptable.
The question then becomes whether the doctrine of the LDS Church also encompasses a prescribed spiritual expression, or whether there is room for individual expressions of spirituality that differ from those that are prescribed.
“concrete-thinking” in line 5, para 4 of the above should be “concrete-feeling”
BiV, thank you for this thoughtful post. I have made some study of female Catholic mystics, as well as women in the early Mormon Church, and I find they have much in common. I do think it has a lot to do with men having the priesthood. As I see my husband give blessings (something he is called upon to do often because of his administrative position), I know that he is having a mystical experience of sorts. He feels a link with the Divine as he is inspired to say certain things. He works hard to foster this experience, with prayer, meditation and scripture study.
It is my belief (and experience) that women have the power to have these same types of experiences today, as they did in earlier times (HG’s Dorothy example). However, it is not currently acceptable for them to display these spiritual/mystical experiences/powers/gifts in public settings or even discuss when they have occurred in private.
Just one example of such an experience was when I was present for the home birth of one of my grandchildren. All of the women present–the mother, the midwife, a couple of friends and myself–were active, endowed members of the LDS Church. At one critical point, the midwife had us all concentrate our personal energy on this mother and child. I won’t describe all that occurred, but suffice it to say, it was the most truly divine experience I have ever had. It is hard not to want to seek such experiences. Yet, they seem to be discouraged, particularly when there is no official priesthood (held by a man) involved. I’m not advocating for public display of such experiences, as I think they are very personal, but neither do I believe they should be discouraged.
I was interested to see recently a book for sale through Deseret Book about various spiritual experiences people (women and men) have had in LDS temples. I wonder why it is more acceptable for these things to happen in temples, but not in our everyday lives.
So, in answer to your questions, I do feel drawn to what some would consider alternative expressions of spirituality, and I think this is a feminist issue to the extent that men who hold the priesthood are encouraged to have mystical experiences in the form of priesthood ordinances, particalarly giving blessings, while women, though certainly able to feel of that spiritual experience as participants, are not sanctioned as the instigators of these experiences.
Following the pattern of every new religious movement since time began.
All institutions tend over time to be run, to some extent, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of those who run them. Pentecostal spirituality is hard to institutionalize and control (and often, there is good reason to want to control it); therefore, as religious institutions age, it tends to be discouraged.
“I was interested to see recently a book for sale through Deseret Book about various spiritual experiences people (women and men) have had in LDS temples. I wonder why it is more acceptable for these things to happen in temples, but not in our everyday lives.”
I think this relates to the broader question that BiV brings up. That of: when the sacred is associated with a particular space, can it still happen elsewhere? When spiritual gifts are associated with holders of the priesthood, it can become easy to then make the leap that they ONLY can happen with the priesthood. When spiritual experiences are associated with the temple, it can become easy to assume that they can ONLY happen in the temple.
To Jared and a few others — I don’t think BiV was meaning that these women left the gospel of Christ. Rather, they were expressing their faith, and the fruits of their faith are different than what is commonly seen today in the Church. We rarely hear of women performing healings, and yet they did in the early days of the church. I understood her message about eastern religions more to mean how our faith is structured, not that we’re leaving Christ. More that they are developing personal relationships with God and His Power, similar to what Mike S. has often commented on.
I think I’m probably a perfect (cough) balance of thinking and feeling, and lean more toward the abstract side of things…
BIV and all-
“And who, exactly, is deciding whether the more mystical, pentacostal elements should be shunned? Is it really coming from the higher echelon in the Church, or is it just the common ward member whose disdain effectively shuts down the mystically inclined?”
My thoughts on this are that the mystical side of things can be considered threatening to traditional/institutional structures because the nature of mysticism is really that you (anyone) have a direct relationship with God. That’s tough sometimes for institutions to really support because if you have a direct relationship with God, why do you need the institution to interpret/translate/direct/intermediate this relationship?
However, I think that this fear is really a misplaced, in much the same way that a mother need not fear that her child has grown up–that means she did her job. Institutions can play a vital role in supporting individual relationships with God and facilitating communal growth in God.
What do you think?
Adamf–a head and heart combo can be rare but can provide much ministry. What aspect of worship do you think/feel is the most meaningful to you?
TH: That’s tough sometimes for institutions to really support because if you have a direct relationship with God, why do you need the institution to interpret/translate/direct/intermediate this relationship?
Interesting comment. Buddha likened his teachings to a boat used to cross a stream. Once you’ve crossed the stream, you may as well abandon the boat because it served its purpose.
TH #31 – Good question. First, I used to be a LOT more on the feeling side, until grad school which has really put me more toward the middle. Regarding worship, I’ve found that sometimes my thoughts and feelings are a combined experience – I may be pondering something for a long time, questioning, doubting, thinking, reading, etc. and then have some thought that really strikes me, notably in a very emotional and profound way. That feeling then carries me for a long time.
Another example, but more of a community worship thing – would be the other night during the ward christmas devotional. We watched that short clip on the birth of Christ, and though I have seen it a lot before, I always feel a lot of positive emotion with it – but this time, watching it with everyone, my mind also kicked in and I thought a lot about how neat it is that we all have this shared meaning of Christ, etc. etc. I think the temple also fulfills both the personal and the communal thoughts/feelings of worship for me in some ways.
We are all in search of spiritual experiences that reinforce our belief structure, I think. What is curious to me is that many people seek the alternative path rather than the one we are guided to by the gospel. Seems they get bored with the standard path and stray to find it in others ways.
That is what has lead some to think that the Savior and Heavenly Father has messages and commandments for them outside of the church structure. Maybe it is true, but I am skeptical.
Jeff: Your comment #34 raises a lot of questions in my mind:
Define the “standard path” with which people get bored, and how getting “bored” is different from a search for truth. Are the only people joining the Church people who are straying from some other “standard path” out of boredom or is there perhaps something more? Was Joseph Smith just bored with the churches around him, or perhaps searching for a truth that resonated with him more?
I do agree that we are all “in search of spiritual experiences that reinforce our belief structure”. But what if these aren’t there? What if someone has read the BofM a dozen or more times, but has never received an answer to their prayers that it is “true”? Is that person obligated to follow the “standard path” into which they were born? Or should an honest seeker perhaps see if there is a different path that perhaps God has in mind for them?
And what about “spiritual experiences” that reinforce a non-LDS belief structure? There are millions and millions who fall into that category. Are they all just bored as well?
There are BILLIONS of people who feel that God has a meaning for them outside the LDS church structure.
Mike S,
ÌMm not in a good place to really respond to your points. My simple answer is that I don’t know the answrs to your questions. But I do know that many people in and out of the LDS Church struggle with having spiritual experiences. In the end, we have to do what works for us and stop what doesn’t work.
I know that a lot of folks in the Church work hard to fulfill all that is asked of them and hope for spiritual experiences and don’t have them. I don’t know why. But I also see some who don’t put in much effort and drift off to this thing or the other thing in search of spiritual experuiences. That was really my point.
Jeff:
Thanks. I didn’t really expect any answers to the somewhat rhetorical questions, as they are hard questions that I don’t really have an answer to either.
I understand your point about people drifting off, but at the same time feel that there are many very sincere people who also still haven’t found what they’re looking for within the LDS faith. This is a difficult thing to comprehend as a member, as we teach that we have a “fullness”. Why wouldn’t a sincere seeker have the confirmation? I don’t know.
Jeff & Mike S.–
I don’t have a definitive answer to the questions Mike S. raises. That shouldn’t bother us though. Science, parents, politicians, etc don’t have all the answers either.
I found the following remark that does provide some insight:
A friend of mine once told me about his experience in coming to know and understand the gift of the Holy Ghost. He had prayed often and longed to know the truth of the gospel.
Although he felt at peace with his beliefs, he had never received the certain knowledge for which he hungered. He had reconciled himself to the fact that he might be one of those who would have to walk through this life relying upon the faith of others.
One morning, while pondering the scriptures, he felt something surge through his body from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet. “I was immersed in a feeling of such intense love and pure joy,” he explained. “I cannot describe the measure of what I felt at that time other than to say I was enveloped in joy so profound there was no room in me for any other sensation.”
Even as he felt this outpouring of the Holy Ghost, he wondered if possibly he was just imagining what was happening. “The more I wondered,” he said, “the more intense the feelings became until it was all I could do to tearfully say, ‘It is enough.’” The Unspeakable Gift, Joseph B. Wirthlin, April 2003 General Conference
Mike S. asked the question: “we teach that we have a “fullness”. Why wouldn’t a sincere seeker have the confirmation?”
I’m sure there are varied reasons why the Lord deals with us so differently when it comes to receiving a confirming Spiritual experience.
The following quote may be helpful for those searching for answers:
Although the basic elements of the gospel plan are the same for everyone (i.e., a “strait and narrow path” defined by principles and ordinances; 1 Nephi 8:20; 2 Nephi 31:18), no two individuals are the same. However, the plan makes provision for individual differences through the Atonement and through the trials and tribulations people encounter. Elder Neal A. Maxwell has written and stated on numerous occasions that the Father is a tutorial God who customizes the lessons people experience to meet their needs and shape their progress. Sometimes the lessons involve trials, tribulations, and even chastening by a kind and loving Father (see Hebrews 12:6; Revelation 3:19). He is “a loving God . . . who wants His children to be truly happy and to come home.” Commenting on the trials and tribulations people face, President Boyd K. Packer stated: “Some are tested by poor health, some by a body that is deformed or homely. Others are tested by handsome and healthy bodies; some by the passion of youth; others by the erosions of age. Some suffer disappointment in marriage, family problems; others live in poverty and obscurity. Some (perhaps this is the hardest test) find ease and luxury. All are part of the test, and there is more equality in this testing than sometimes we suspect.” Merrill J. Bateman, “And He Did Invite Them One By One”
Sounds exactly like what Jonathan Edwards described, as quoted in the other thread.
40. Thomas-
I haven’t read the thread on Jonathan Edwards. However, I gather that you’re suggesting that people from other faiths, even non-christian, have the same or similar confirming experiences as LDS.
I think there is ample evidence (scriptural and experiential) to show that the “Spirit” is available to all of God’s children, not just LDS. One example that comes to mind at the moment is Abish’s father (Alma 19:16). Most students of the Book of Mormon agree that he wasn’t a christian.
The brother in Elder Withlin’s story was praying for something very specific, and I doubt anyone could persuade him that it didn’t come from God because Jonathan Edwards had the same kind of experience.
The key difference between LDS and all other faiths is that we have access to the gift of the Holy Ghost because of priesthood authority restored to the earth as a result of the restoration through a prophet.
I have to insist that I do not find the alternative spiritual paths or mystical experiences of which I am referring in the OP to be contrary to the will of God. I personally see these as being acceptable both to Deity and in the framework of the early Church. I think that the only reason they are outside the pale of acceptability in the Church today is because they are suspect to both controlling leaders and parochial members such as some of the ones who have commented here.
I am dismayed that so many of you immediately want to connect the workings of the Holy Spirit with drifting off, or straying — just because it might not be what you are familiar with.
If we have access to the Holy Ghost by virtue of the restoration, it seems to me that there would be an acceptance of ALL of the manifestations enumerated in the scriptures. Some of you seem to want to affirm the presence of the HG in our Church and yet too stringently define what this looks like and feels like to others.
I think the reason this feels like a feminist issue to me is that the majority of men are PH holders, with carte blanche to express their spirituality in established channels. Since women don’t have this opportunity, they sometimes search for ways for their spirituality to find expression. If these expressions are unusual or no longer practiced, they can be censured by local authority, even though apparently Joseph provided for this outlet among the women of the early Church.
#42 BiV–
As members of the church we can’t come unto Christ without the Holy Ghost. Men and women have equal access to the gift of the Holy Ghost once they’ve received the ordinance of baptism.
As far as I know. the manifestations of the Holy Ghost as enumerated in the scriptures don’t have anything to do with gender. This includes the gifts of the Spirit.
A man has no advantage over a woman in the eyes of the Lord. He tells us He is no respecter of persons. The priesthood is a male thing. Having children is a female thing. Neither of these male, female things gives an advantage or a disadvantage of one sex over the other. The gift of eternal life is available on the same grounds to both men and women. This is how I see it.
I get the sense that BiV is talking past a lot of people.
I feel like I totally get where she is coming from here, but for some reason there seems to be a disconnect.
40)
The difference between other faiths and Lds is that we have the Holy Spirit.
Some may argue that point differently, I was taking a class in Judaism recently and the rabbi told a story which went along like this. There was a rabbi who was struggling to find out if he should continue to lead his congregation. He got into a discussion with another leading rabbi and they began to argue. So, the first rabbi went by himself to a cave and there after many days of fasting he had a dream and he was sure that that dream told him he should be the Rabbi for his congregation. So, the following Sabbath day he went to the congregation and told everyone his dream and an old man stood up and said, why would the Spirit only come to you. If what you say is true than the spirit would not have been revealed just to you, The Spirit would have come to all of us in our dreams and told us you were to be our leader.
Madame Curie, thank you.
I feel quite misunderstood here.
On the other hand, somehow this post has sparked a conversation (which I didn’t intend) that must be of some interest to our readers.
BiV et al,
Forgive me, but I don’t think there is anything to be misunderstood on when it comes to the basic purpose of our baptism covenant–to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and a remission of sins. We are either on course to fulfilling our baptism covenant or we are doing other things.
Based on my experience with the saints, many (50% of the active members according to the awful arithmetic of the parable of the ten virgins) are caught up in dead works. It isn’t a matter of good or evil, it is a matter of wise and unwise. Either we are having sufficient manifestation of the spirit in our lives, or not. If we are, we need to stay on course, if not, we need to change course. It isn’t rocket science, it doesn’t have anything to do with gender. It has everything to do with the first principles of the gospel:
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:4)
All this has been working in my life since the day I decided to get serious about the basics of the gospel. It really is true.
Yes, I agree that BiV is talking past people. I think it is quite interesting to view the pentecostal experiences of early church members. Like Hawkgrrrl, I too am more comfortable with “conventional” spirituality, though I wish we would let women bless the sick, as they did until 1946, and were encouraged to do so by the “authoritarian” Brigham Young. I also find it interesting that we accept angelic visits to Mary, Jesus, and Joseph Smith, yet we reject angelic visits to Joan of Arc, Mohammad, or James Strang. As Mormons, we say the heavens are open, but it doesn’t seem like we practice what we preach.
There is a common misperception that women were treated poorly under polygamy. While I am no fan of polygamy, the evidence is clear that in many ways, women were quite empowered. They could own property (and often did–especially during the polygamy persecution), and worked as physicians in Mormon communities. Utah women were the first to vote–gentiles expected them to reject Mormon leadership–yet they clearly supported it greatly. Utah had the most liberal divorce laws in the nation; if a woman wanted a divorce in Utah–she got one–even Brigham Young got divorced due to his wife’s desire. (See my post on polygamist divorces.) So there are some big misconceptions about early Mormon women. I think it is a shame that many of these gifts (such as speaking in tongues that BiV alluded to), are discounted today, regardless of gender.
But I am getting sidetracked here. Priesthood is not determined by genetics or sex. Jared, the rationale that “The priesthood is a male thing. Having children is a female thing” is ridiculous. Men have sperm. That’s a male thing. Women have ovaries. That’s a female thing. Lots of religions have female priests–so this argument that the priesthood is a male thing is ridiculous.
Priesthood being a male thing should not be based on XY chromosomes anymore than priesthood was denied based on race. It is a sexist policy that should be changed, and I hope that it will be one day. I’ve had the opportunity to sit and listen to a female apostle from the Community of Christ (Susan Skoor) on multiple occasions, and felt the spirit greatly. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. Female spirituality should be encouraged, and there should be no reason why they should be denied the ability to give blessings, just as men. I don’t understand why this was taken away in 1946. I think it would greatly help women’s spirituality to participate in these mystical blessings, just as it helps men. It should not be denied to women.
Jared, I am happy that your course is working for you. The scriptures tell us that there are diversities of gifts (1 Cor 12:4-11). In fact, let us review that scripture:
My point is that those who are drawn to some of the gifts that are not typically used in today’s Church are being dismissed as (in your words) not staying “on course.” Others in this thread have castigated such seekers for not sticking to the “standard path,” and even suggested they are following “forbidden paths.” This is unfortunate, because we all have different proclivities, and what works for one may not work for someone else. I’d like to see more recognition of the validity of the diversity of the Spirit, is all.
You would probably agree with this point (I’m hoping), but your language hasn’t been all that validating.
MH, awesome.
BiV–
See my comment #5. I don’t have a problem with any of the gifts of the Spirit that are from God. Everything that comes from God is designed to help us acquire the gift of the Holy Ghost and in so doing enable us to come to Christ.
BiV, I really appreciate this post (and those comments that didn’t miss the bus). I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as I’ve sought out an alternative form of spirituality myself in the absence of church attendance. I do think this is a feminist issue, and I do think that these avenues of exploration need to be accepted rather than denied to us by those afraid of the appearance of mysticism.
I used to get around my lack of feeling in conventional LDS practice by looking at the rituals and ordinances from an outside perspective. In many ways, some of what we do is at its core very esoteric. I think we just don’t see it because it is so familiar to us.
But I also find that there are voids to my my practical experience in the church that cannot be filled without adding something else. I am turning to yoga in an attempt to fill this gaping hole, but it is very telling to me that I actually feel a need to guard this fact from church members that I have contact with. Mostly because when I speak about it, I am not limiting it to a discussion of the merits of exercise, and I can’t hide the fact that I am looking for enlightenment and actively seeking truth elsewhere. And that is just wrong 😉
I have long envied the practices of our foremothers in the early church, and as a healer I long for the day that we will be officially accepted in the realm of blessings. But for now, I am supplementing my interaction with God and I don’t feel an ounce of heresy. I do wish more women that feel this pull would feel comfortable owning it and remaining in view of other members so that we can expand our connection to the divine as a whole. But that’s a lot to ask. Maybe eventually as we continue to climb the ladder.
BiV:
Great post – one with which I emphasize completely. And the comments that are “contrary” ironically support the issues raised by the post as valid.
I am a lifelong member of the LDS Church and have felt peace with many things there. But I have also found truths in other Christian faiths, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. I suppose many might say I am wandering down “forbidden” paths, but I still cling to the concept that “by their fruits” we will find truth.
Thank you for this post.
I also envy the CofC for many things (is envy a sin?). Just this last week I was sitting in sacrament meeting thinking how cool it would be if one of the women in my ward was conducting. I also get tired of the line of 6-7 men that sit on the stand in a queue (ie. bishopric, stake presidency, and quite often, a general authority – it happens in SLC)
Maybe someday. Many people thought we’d never see a black man up there.
1) I’m not sure what you mean by alternative. It is written that “there are different ways that [the 14 best gifts of the Spirit] are administered.” In fact, one of the 14 best gifts is to know the differences of administration of the gifts. So, I don’t see how any administration of the gifts of the Holy Spirit can be termed an alternative expression of spirituality. If it is an evil gift, coming from the evil spirit, that’s a horse of a different color. But we’ve already been given the key to discern between good and evil gifts (in Moroni 7), so there shouldn’t be any confusion over this thing.
2) I suppose you are asking if I feel constrained by my church membership to not exercise my gifts. No, I do not. On the contrary, when I feel like manifesting a gift, I feel constrained (by the Spirit) to do so. But I’m the wrong one to answer this question. I’m an anarchist, after all.
3) I don’t see this as a gender-based issue. In fact, focussing on only the female aspect of it just makes it that much harder to see the whole picture, IMO.
LDSA, thanks for commenting on this. Had to chuckle at your #2.
Maybe there SHOULDN’T be confusion on which spiritual gifts are acceptable, but I submit that in today’s Church, there is. And I guess I can see why it might be difficult; after all, what can be detrimental for one person’s spiritual growth might be just the thing for another.
And I DO go back and forth on this being a feminist issue. As I explained above, I think it’s something women do encounter in their effort to carve out a place for spiritual leadership in a patriarchal Church. But I know it’s not a gender-based problem when one is sidelined because one’s spiritual practices are out of the norm.
“The priesthood is a male thing. Having children is a female thing. ”
Jared, if this is your thinking regarding child bearing, I think you’ve missed the point. I am right there with my wife during the whole child raising process — starting from impregnation up to struggling with our 2 year old. Having children is something we do together.
Similarly, so is using the priesthood. It only works through faith. When I have given my daughter a blessing, my wife is right next to us, using her faith just as much as I am. I think it is because of this that we will eventually not care whose hands are on the head, as they did in the early days of the restored Church, and most likely in the days of Christ too. As you correctly point out, it is the first principles of the Gospel that make it work: faith in Christ and His power. This faith is what works, and I really don’t think he’ll care who is using it for good.
#57 AndrewJDavis-
I agree with your comment. This is the way my wife and I raised our children. And now that their adults we still use the same approach.
“The brother in Elder Withlin’s story was praying for something very specific, and I doubt anyone could persuade him that it didn’t come from God because Jonathan Edwards had the same kind of experience.”
Perhaps not. It may well be that some people have mystical experiences that somehow leave no doubt about the possibility that they could have a naturalistic source. I haven’t ever had such an experience; whenever I believe I have felt the Spirit, I believe because I choose to believe, acknowledging the possibility at least that the source could be evolution or chemistry. But I’ll also acknowledge the possibility that what other people experience is so different from what I experience, that there is no reasonable doubt that they are experiencing revelation.
There still remains, though, the question of interpretation. A person experiences an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon reading a passage of scripture, or while praying or pondering about some religious point. Therefore — what? What conclusions inevitably flow from that sequence of events?
Thomas–
I think your point is valid.
I feel the intent of this story is that the brother for years had wanted his own confirmation, but he was willing to rely on the testimonies of others. I suppose he would have done that for the rest of his life.
We are required to walk by faith is the message of the scriptures.
The quote in #39 teaches that each of us has customized blessings as well as customized challenges.
My personal experiences with the manifestations of the Spirit are like those that have been written up in scripture.
As a result, I have no doubt about the restoration, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the other claims made by the LDS church. Yet, I am fully aware that I must stay on the straight and narrow path, endure to the end by exercising faith. Faith is the key, in whatever degree we possess it. It will be added upon, according to the Lord’s will, until the perfect day.
I am in agreement that the Spirit and Spiritual experiences do not have gender bias. And there is nothing in LDS teachings or the scriptures that say otherwise. While I would say that having a child is a very spiritual experience, it is certain different for the wife and the husband.
I think in many cases, we as Latter-day Saints are very lazy spiritually. We expect our leaders to spiritually uplift us but yet complain when they say things we don’t like. We really don’t like to do the scripture study, prayer, etc. At least not in real depth.
This existence requires us to find own spiritual path, each one of us and while I think the Gospel as taught in the Church gives us a pretty good formula for following that path, we must seek it. We must hunger for it and we must work at it. Otherwise, we are null and void of it.
As I said in an earlier comment, some folks go an alternate route rather than work hard on the route we are prescribed.
BTW, it was BIV who used the term “alternative” rather than “different.” Because it many ways we are on “different paths” but not alternative ones.
As some of you know, this is the topic of my doctoral dissertation, which I’m in the process of writing. BiV has expressed one of my main arguments: that SOME (though not all) women who engage extra-Mormon beliefs and practices do so because they have not found the LDS Church (as opposed to Mormonism as a religious tradition) to provide them the opportunities for beliefs and practices that feed their souls. AND most of them see it as a feminist issue that involves Heavenly Mother’s place in Mormon doctrine and practice.
This conversation here is an excellent expression of the issue. Responses to BiV’s question reveals what’s at stake for Mormons who engage the questions she’s posed. The institution has little need to police its boundaries. Over time, it has taught its members how to do that job well. Members often automatically protect boundaries between the faithful and the Other by dismissing as faithless, vacuous, or dangerous those for whom modern church structures and practices are either insufficient or simply don’t work.
And I’ve made very simplistic statements above…it is, of course, much more complicated than that. 🙂
Doe,
“Members often automatically protect boundaries between the faithful and the Other by dismissing as faithless, vacuous, or dangerous those for whom modern church structures and practices are either insufficient or simply don’t work.”
Isn’t it just as correct to say that those who stray outside the norm of Mormon spiritual paths because it is not “hip enough,” not intellectual enough” or gives the pursuer enough power or control?
The norm seems to work for a great many people, why not all?
Jeff, while I’ve encountered many LDS Church members who do in fact openly dismiss as faithless, selfish, vacuous, and dangerous those who seek outside the church for spiritual fulfillment (Ive obviously seen some of that in this thread), I have yet to interview (or personally know) anyone who reports “straying” outside Mormonism because it isn’t “hip” or “intellectual” enough. (To begin with, there’s a problem with the concept of “straying.” These characterizations reveal more about your spiritual concerns than theirs.)
On the other hand, the ability to define oneself spiritually (the “power” and “control” element of your argument) is foundational to the American religious experience. I would definitely confirm that that such freedom is instrumental in both women AND men’s spiritual “seeking” desires and behaviors that take them outside of Mormonism (or, perhaps, any religious group), even if they maintain an active and believing relationship to the LDS Church. Americans have always been spiritual seekers.
Doe,
“(To begin with, there’s a problem with the concept of “straying.” These characterizations reveal more about your spiritual concerns than theirs.)”
Really, how so?
” I have yet to interview (or personally know) anyone who reports “straying” outside Mormonism because it isn’t “hip” or “intellectual” enough.”
As if one would admit to something like that? I know a number of people who fit this description. And they do not have to be outside of Mormonism, just wandering outside the mainstream. In some cases, pining for the old days gone by, when the Church was in its infancy and its doctrines and practices were somewhat more fluid than they are today.
Jeff, the word “straying” indicates your interpretation of what others are doing. Some of them, of course, admit they are “straying” or “leaving,” etc. They know they’re on their way out. On the other hand, many people I know consider themselves faithful members on a quest to add to the truth and knowledge they already possess or to be MORE quintessentially Mormon rather than “less.” So your characterization of them as “straying” is your own story about them, not the “truth” about what is happening.
Ditto the other category of persons, who you identify as “outside the mainstream” because Mormonism isn’t “intellectual enough.” Your challenge, “As if one would admit to something like that” suggests that the conversation is more about you than them. This is how you see them, not how they see themselves–which is fine, but it isn’t the “truth” about who they are or their motives for their spiritual yearnings.
Doe,
Firstly, let’s go back to the OP where it is BiV who uses the term “alternative paths.” That implies not adding to what they have in Mormonism, but seeking something else.
I am only going on my own experience with some who have truly sought an “alternative path” right out of the Church or where they learned “something special” that put them above “following the prophet” to a special relationship with the Savior. This allowed them to do things that might involve church disciple if discovered.
“On the other hand, many people I know consider themselves faithful members on a quest to add to the truth and knowledge they already possess or to be MORE quintessentially Mormon rather than “less.” ”
These folks were certainly not the ones I have been referring to.
And finally, if you wish to psychoanalyze me and the comments I make, please feel free, but what I write here does not necessarily in anyway reflect who I am and what I think. It is only a reaction to the OP.
But, then again, you are a Doctoral candidate.
Doe, thank you for your wisdom. Your research sounds very interesting.
The gospel is really simple. Our fallen natures complicate it, often to the extent that we lose sight of the beauty that bought us to it in the first place.
There will always be issues when someone expresses their spirituality differently from the “accepted norm.” The less I make an issue of the issues, the more I realize I don’t leave anything behind, but move forward. Thanks for the post, it reminds me there are many people taking a stand for their inherent spirituality.