Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Limnor]

You probably know more than I do here, how much has spiritualism influenced Christianity and Mormonism?

I’ve been thinking about this since you posted it. When you say spiritualism, do you mean in the sense of 19th-century seances, or are you using it more broadly to mean belief in spirits or inner religious experience?

[Gadianton]

Seances and theosophy. Astral projection. OBEs. New age stuff. That book I mentioned, Return from Tomorrow, have to wonder if there is a spiritualist influence there. As you pointed out, Christianity is concerned more about spiritual health in the abstract. Spiritualists are interested in the actual objective spiritual world. Like an adventure game. In spiritualism, the Mormon sort of spirit is the ethereal body that can wander around but is attached to body by a silver cord. At death, the silver cord snaps. But there is also the Astral body and higher bodies, and astral projection has nothing to do with the ethereal body leaving the physical body. It's a totally separate realm, one that can be objectively interacted with, with creatures and landscapes and everything. I think Mormonism has a fascination with the spiritual realms but as that book shows, so do many Christians. Not the kind of Christian who thinks about theology, but the everyday rube. The Christian who believes houses might be haunted or in UFOs, what counts for an explanation of spirit are the kinds of narratives found in new age movement, stories about exotic people and places.

[Limnor]

I think for the average Christian (Catholic, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc.), faith probably functions much like for the average Mormon. People attend a church because that’s how they were raised, or to provide a foundation for their families: do the right thing, tell the truth, love your neighbors, and that sort of thing. Some only attend or think about church on Christmas or Easter. In the Catholic tradition, it always interested me when people would stay just long enough to recieve communion and then immediately depart.

I don’t think most people even understand what “ontological” means, let alone how it is practically relevant to them. They don’t believe because Aquinas convinced them. Instead, at least until relatively recently, I think people asked “what kind of people do we want to be, and how do we keep that going across generations?” At least in terms of religious underpinnings. I think that’s probably universal across faith and cultural traditions.

So that’s probably the average rube, and you’re right that the spiritual world is probably secondary for most people.

There are some traditions, however, in which the spiritual is considered very real, though I’d think the majority of Christians (maybe 75% or so? I don’t know) would label them as fringe—snake handlers, speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, that type of thing. And I think many Christians casually accept ideas like ghosts, hauntings, or UFOs, that can look like New Age or spiritualist belief, probably closer to the folk traditions we read about historically in Christianity. I wouldn’t call those mainstream ideas, though.

I’m not certain the theological concept—an inherently spiritual one—described by Paul in Romans is well read or understood, based on my experience and conversations with people. Heck I barely understand it. Which is odd to me as I think an adherent to a faith tradition ought to read and understand its foundational texts for it to have personal meaning.

[Limnor]

In spiritualism, the Mormon sort of spirit is the ethereal body that can wander around but is attached to body by a silver cord. At death, the silver cord snaps. But there is also the Astral body and higher bodies, and astral projection has nothing to do with the ethereal body leaving the physical body. It's a totally separate realm, one that can be objectively interacted with, with creatures and landscapes and everything.

Is this a commonplace thing in Mormonism? Like meditation and imagining leaving the physical body? Is that what you’re describing?

[Gadianton]

Not at all, that would be highly inappropriate but then again, there is the Julie Rowe crowd, so I'm sure it's happening somewhere. Mormons, like Baptists, are highly opposed to "spiritualism". Mormonism has followed the crowd in terms of Satanic panic. Every priesthood leader worth his salt has fortuitously been in a room with an Ouija Board at least once and prevented it from working by the power of his priesthood. I'm sure it happened to Everybody Wang Chung as a Stake President. Mormons aren't even supposed to use face cards, even though MG does. What I'm saying is that unwittingly, Mormons may have latched onto certain spiritualist concepts. Mormons, unlike Christians, do believe in a spirit world that is separate from heaven -- an in-between place. (Christians who read Return from Tomorrow and believe it also have adopted such an in-between place without knowing it)

If I had to put it into technical terms, the rules of the game for Mormonism would be that, like in spiritualism, there is a firewall separating the physical world from the spirit world. Communications can pass, however, it's half-duplex communication in Mormonism vs. full-duplex communication in spiritualism. For "reasons", spirits both good and bad can contact Mormons from the spirit world. I've heard endless stories of these contacts. One in particular was told by an uncle of mine who is a matter-of-fact no-nonsense businessman, not a feelings type person at all, but here he is relaying this profound incident from the temple where a deceased ancestor made contact, slowed time, and all kinds of wild stuff. You have no idea how serious Mormons take these things. I've also heard several testimonies from local leaders who have encountered Lucifer as a spirit person. Mormon lore is full of encounters like these, including Big Foot (Cain) and the three Nephites who are immortal physical beings wandering the earth today. I had a seminary teacher who told three Nephite stories in total seriousness. You can get up in fast and testimony meeting and talk about running into Cain while camping, then being attacked by an evil spirit on the road back and nearly crashing, and then during a temple session the next day getting visited by grandma as a spirit to tell you about a relative who needs their temple work done. A few eyes may roll, but no big deal, everyday stuff. HOWEVER -- if you get up in fast and testimony meeting and even HINT at attempting to communicate with somebody in the spirit world you're toast, the bishop is going to call you in and sit you down. In fact, most of these stories not only hold that the contact initiates one way, but the information is fully one way. Grandma revealed this and that, but you didn't respond and have a conversation. That's a gray zone. Satan visiting you and threatening you is one thing, but saying that you had a two-way conversation would sound wrong; maximum you can command him to depart, in the name of the Son.

Now here's the thing, Limnor, I'm describing these rules in the same way Dr. Shades might describe grammar. I don't know anything about grammar in terms of rules. I may be able to carry on a conversation using acceptable grammar because it's internalized. When I say these are the rules, they are discovered rules, rules that I think Mormons have internalized but are unaware of objectively speaking.

ETA: I got carried away in the exciting technical details and forgot about the point of all of this. I'm saying that a mini-series like "Out on a Limb" with Shirley MaClaine may resonate with Mormons because of some of the shared ideas, but they would see it as "apostate" and a perversion of the truth. However, such media could influence their thinking about it -- the way they visualize it.

[Limnor]

There is a realization that is hitting here, a little more than I expected. I hadn’t considered the spiritual experiences of the three nephites and Cain, for example, as something that was somewhat mainstream, though maybe I am hearing a bit more of the grammar than you intended.

The Mormon insight I have is reduced to what folks publish in online forums, and that mostly from the ex-Mormon point of view, so it is filled with mockery. I didn’t realize that the expectation when someone is relating an experience like this in real time is to respectfully listen. This realization has resulted in a feeling that those stories feel like jokes right up until they aren’t.

So what I’m hearing and processing is that while “people believe in Cain as Bigfoot” sounds ridiculous, “I personally encountered a being who identified himself as Cain” is suddenly protected. The laughter fades because the claim has changed from written doctrinal ideas into lived experience.

And, the system doesn’t ask if the experience is objectively “true.” If I’m understanding you correctly, the question shifts from objective truth to “is this from God or not?” when the community accepts your sincerity as objective truth and only cautions the interpretation. The experience itself becomes untouchable and the check turns from “that didn’t happen” to “just don’t claim control or initiation.”

So instead of thinking someone bearing their testimony is a lie designed to gain converts, there is rather a real—to the bearer—experience that outweighs plausibility. And there is no designed means to test the experience objectively.

[huckelberry]

.......
And, the system doesn’t ask if the experience is objectively “true.” If I’m understanding you correctly, the question shifts from objective truth to “is this from God or not?” when the community accepts your sincerity as objective truth and only cautions the interpretation. The experience itself becomes untouchable and the check turns from “that didn’t happen” to “just don’t claim control or initiation.”

So instead of thinking someone bearing their testimony is a lie designed to gain converts, there is rather a real—to the bearer—experience that outweighs plausibility. And there is no designed means to test the experience objectively.

Limnor to my view you have a sharp summary here

[Gadianton]

I didn’t realize that the expectation when someone is relating an experience like this in real time is to respectfully listen. This realization has resulted in a feeling that those stories feel like jokes right up until they aren’t.

As an outsider or skeptic, sure, they seem like jokes, but as a true believer, they are very serious, however, there's 1x, 2x, 3x, and possibly 4x asterisks appending each of these accounts. It's quite touchy territory.

So what I’m hearing and processing is that while “people believe in Cain as Bigfoot” sounds ridiculous, “I personally encountered a being who identified himself as Cain” is suddenly protected. The laughter fades because the claim has changed from written doctrinal ideas into lived experience.

The analogy here is language fluency. Properly speaking in Mormonese. The ability to relate the experience just right. I like the word "protected". The base level of fluency guarantees protection. But there's a huge difference between "protected" and "respected". You've got the older person or poor person who relates an out-there encounter and they've got protection if they relate the experience correctly. However, having been subjected to countless of these, I can say that I and others often felt embarrassed for these folks and there isn't a strong level in belief in the stories but certainly an appreciation for the sincerity of belief and conformity to the community narrative.

Moving from protected to respected is purely a matter of the social credibility of the person and skills as a story teller. When my seminary teacher told of encounters with the three Nephites, it was quite believable for me. But then there's that other guy. The hard-nosed, gruff, upper-middle class small business owner guy who was a man of few words. The only thing this guy ever said to me was "Go around!" He yelled that at me one day when I cut across a small corner of his yard walking home from school. When this big guy stood up to the microphone, the first and only time recall him bearing his testimony cuz he wasn't that spiritual and kind of a dick, and then with complete sincerity and fantastic story pacing for a man of the trades reveals his encounter with Lucifer in his basement, the few hairs I had on my arms stood up. The audience was stunned. I totally believed it because this wasn't the wacky, emotionally needy type with an unstable life and all that. I'm sure Satan was as scared as I was when I cut through his yard that day.

And, the system doesn’t ask if the experience is objectively “true.” If I’m understanding you correctly, the question shifts from objective truth to “is this from God or not?” when the community accepts your sincerity as objective truth and only cautions the interpretation. The experience itself becomes untouchable and the check turns from “that didn’t happen” to “just don’t claim control or initiation.”

So much to unpack from this and I'm not going to try right now. Yes and no. I mean, just think about the tension between narrative conformity and objective truth. From a bishops perspective, on the one hand, his ears are perked up hoping something not too unorthodox crops up that requires him to take action. On the other hand, the bishop actually believes that supernatural experiences are real. Does he really believe an experience is more likely because the speaker took time to conform it to a certain narrative? All I can say for now that proper grammar is important, lots of ark steading ready to go if the grammar is off, but at the same time, one is ready to believe a supernatural experience might be objectively true. One hopes to encounter such experiences, in fact. One hopes to hear a story about the three Nephites that they can believe is literally real -- as in real gold plates.

[Whiskey]

I didn’t realize that the expectation when someone is relating an experience like this in real time is to respectfully listen. This realization has resulted in a feeling that those stories feel like jokes right up until they aren’t.

As an outsider or skeptic, sure, they seem like jokes, but as a true believer, they are very serious, however, there's 1x, 2x, 3x, and possibly 4x asterisks appending each of these accounts. It's quite touchy territory.

So what I’m hearing and processing is that while “people believe in Cain as Bigfoot” sounds ridiculous, “I personally encountered a being who identified himself as Cain” is suddenly protected. The laughter fades because the claim has changed from written doctrinal ideas into lived experience.

The analogy here is language fluency. Properly speaking in Mormonese. The ability to relate the experience just right. I like the word "protected". The base level of fluency guarantees protection. But there's a huge difference between "protected" and "respected". You've got the older person or poor person who relates an out-there encounter and they've got protection if they relate the experience correctly. However, having been subjected to countless of these, I can say that I and others often felt embarrassed for these folks and there isn't a strong level in belief in the stories but certainly an appreciation for the sincerity of belief and conformity to the community narrative.

Moving from protected to respected is purely a matter of the social credibility of the person and skills as a story teller. When my seminary teacher told of encounters with the three Nephites, it was quite believable for me. But then there's that other guy. The hard-nosed, gruff, upper-middle class small business owner guy who was a man of few words. The only thing this guy ever said to me was "Go around!" He yelled that at me one day when I cut across a small corner of his yard walking home from school. When this big guy stood up to the microphone, the first and only time recall him bearing his testimony cuz he wasn't that spiritual and kind of a dick, and then with complete sincerity and fantastic story pacing for a man of the trades reveals his encounter with Lucifer in his basement, the few hairs I had on my arms stood up. The audience was stunned. I totally believed it because this wasn't the wacky, emotionally needy type with an unstable life and all that. I'm sure Satan was as scared as I was when I cut through his yard that day.

And, the system doesn’t ask if the experience is objectively “true.” If I’m understanding you correctly, the question shifts from objective truth to “is this from God or not?” when the community accepts your sincerity as objective truth and only cautions the interpretation. The experience itself becomes untouchable and the check turns from “that didn’t happen” to “just don’t claim control or initiation.”

So much to unpack from this and I'm not going to try right now. Yes and no. I mean, just think about the tension between narrative conformity and objective truth. From a bishops perspective, on the one hand, his ears are perked up hoping something not too unorthodox crops up that requires him to take action. On the other hand, the bishop actually believes that supernatural experiences are real. Does he really believe an experience is more likely because the speaker took time to conform it to a certain narrative? All I can say for now that proper grammar is important, lots of ark steading ready to go if the grammar is off, but at the same time, one is ready to believe a supernatural experience might be objectively true. One hopes to encounter such experiences, in fact. One hopes to hear a story about the three Nephites that they can believe is literally real -- as in real gold plates.

You wrote that?

A dick met Satan. You wrote that?

[Limnor]

From a bishops perspective, on the one hand, his ears are perked up hoping something not too unorthodox crops up that requires him to take action. On the other hand, the bishop actually believes that supernatural experiences are real.

I appreciate you sharing this, Gad. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the text and its composition but much less on the lived experiences of members. I’m wondering if there is applicability to my understanding of the book and its origins—for example, if one of the early friends of Joseph shared their experiences in a (loosely) similar way as you’ve described here, setting themselves in an ancient setting and describing themselves and their experiences as seen through the spiritual eyes of Alma. I’m not setting a hard alignment but it is interesting when looked at through a “spiritualist” lens.

It almost sounds like frontier “tall tales” of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. My uncle was Mormon—he used to tell these types of tales to my cousins and me, but I thought it was just for entertainment. In fact, it was my uncle who grabbed a shovel and dug the Grand Canyon all those years ago.

You mentioned that a bishop might hear something that requires “action;” would you be willing to describe the types of action you have in mind? I’m not assuming discipline or disbelief, based on your description, but I’m curious where the line is between an experience needing some kind of containment versus one that requires intervention, and what that intervention might look like.