4 ms·

> Most people think of it as strong feelings they have in situations. This is a simplification. I can be angry--that's a strong feeling. But that doesn't mea

> Most people think of it as strong feelings they have in situations. This is a simplification. I can be angry--that's a strong feeling. But that doesn't mean I've felt the Spirit speak to me. Feelings are certainly a part of it though. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't found a perfect simple description for the experience. Similar to asking someone to describe what "salt" tastes like--it's not the easiest thing to do. But there are common themes that you tend to hear. The Church has a lot of articles on it--here's one in case anyone's interested: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/revelation?lang=eng&id=title3-p17#title3 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...

xkcd-sucks 3y ago
It seems similar to ordinary "best judgement", "careful consideration", "wisdom" etc wrapped up in some externalizing language for the most part. not to trivialize that, it is quite a feat if you can reliably cultivate those qulaities at scale
- camhart 3y ago
  When you're "seeking revelation" there is the expectation that you'll work it out as best you can on your own. Revelation is not intended to be an easy/lazy shortcut--in my experience it's taken significant effort. But having the Holy Spirit communicate to you is different from coming to a conclusion on your own. If I get analytical about it, while receiving revelation has been a personal experience for me, there is (at least what feels like) an external force at play (that I attribute to the Holy Spirit) when it happens. From the outside looking in, I can understand this may cause concern for those who haven't experienced it--"you're listening to voices/feelings in your head!" But it's led me to "good" things (be a better person, live more honestly, have greater hope, have greater peace, repair a wrong I made, take on more responsibility, get off the couch and go help someone, hold to my principals, etc). I know people may complain about hearing this, but if you're genuinely curious it's easiest to understand if you actually experience it for yourself. Carrying from the previously mentioned analogy, I can spend hours trying to communicate to you what salt tastes like, but I won't be able to do it justice. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to try. But if you are curious I'm happy to discuss further in a more private way. I've had my experiences that have led me to my beliefs, but they are experiences I only wish to share in environments where respect can be communicated/felt between myself and the person I'm sharing them with.
- frognumber 3y ago
  A good description of this is in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's worth reading. His thesis is roughly: 1) We have a moral sense which goes against what we want to do. 2) That sense is how the Spirit speaks to us. I might want to have an affair. I might know I won't get caught. I will have a sense that it's /wrong/ and not do it as a result. Where does that sense come from? To be clear: (1) I'm not doing it justice (2) I know the trite atheist answers. However, it's worth reading and understanding (as well as similar texts from other religions) for at least two reasons: - As with any polarization, it's worth listening to all sides to understand them and be able to empathize with thenm. - It gives a sense of why and how religion is logical. It's as strong as any case against God which I've read. Footnote: The latter is a plurality-style and not a majority-style argument. There are many good arguments in many (incompatible) belief systems. They're all worth studying.

xkcd-sucks 3y ago

It seems similar to ordinary "best judgement", "careful consideration", "wisdom" etc wrapped up in some externalizing language for the most part. not to trivialize that, it is quite a feat if you can reliably cultivate those qulaities at scale

camhart 3y ago
When you're "seeking revelation" there is the expectation that you'll work it out as best you can on your own. Revelation is not intended to be an easy/lazy shortcut--in my experience it's taken significant effort. But having the Holy Spirit communicate to you is different from coming to a conclusion on your own. If I get analytical about it, while receiving revelation has been a personal experience for me, there is (at least what feels like) an external force at play (that I attribute to the Holy Spirit) when it happens. From the outside looking in, I can understand this may cause concern for those who haven't experienced it--"you're listening to voices/feelings in your head!" But it's led me to "good" things (be a better person, live more honestly, have greater hope, have greater peace, repair a wrong I made, take on more responsibility, get off the couch and go help someone, hold to my principals, etc). I know people may complain about hearing this, but if you're genuinely curious it's easiest to understand if you actually experience it for yourself. Carrying from the previously mentioned analogy, I can spend hours trying to communicate to you what salt tastes like, but I won't be able to do it justice. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to try. But if you are curious I'm happy to discuss further in a more private way. I've had my experiences that have led me to my beliefs, but they are experiences I only wish to share in environments where respect can be communicated/felt between myself and the person I'm sharing them with.
frognumber 3y ago
A good description of this is in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's worth reading. His thesis is roughly: 1) We have a moral sense which goes against what we want to do. 2) That sense is how the Spirit speaks to us. I might want to have an affair. I might know I won't get caught. I will have a sense that it's /wrong/ and not do it as a result. Where does that sense come from? To be clear: (1) I'm not doing it justice (2) I know the trite atheist answers. However, it's worth reading and understanding (as well as similar texts from other religions) for at least two reasons: - As with any polarization, it's worth listening to all sides to understand them and be able to empathize with thenm. - It gives a sense of why and how religion is logical. It's as strong as any case against God which I've read. Footnote: The latter is a plurality-style and not a majority-style argument. There are many good arguments in many (incompatible) belief systems. They're all worth studying.