In September of 1830, about six months after the Church had been restored, Joseph Smith received the revelation which has become section 29 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In it the Lord declares:
Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. (verse 34)
There have been various moments in my life when this truth has been made very clear. All things are spiritual. As we discuss ideas in the bloggernacle, it is easy to forget that that which is intellectual is also spiritual and therefore the ideas we are struggling with represent a spiritual struggle and not merely an intellectual one.
A little over six months after section 29 was given, the Lord revealed to Joseph what is now section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The brethern had been experiencing various spiritual manifestations that were not of God. The Lord explains:
Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world. And also Satan hath sought to deceive you, that he might overthrow you. Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name.
…
Behold, verily I say unto you, there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some, which has given the adversary power… Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me.
The Lord says that the spiritual manifestations being preached and experienced by some members of the church at that time were the work of False Spirits. Later in the section Lord then gives us the famous scripture about teaching by the spirit of truth and declares that that which edifies both speaker and hearer is of Him.
Some would say that we no longer see this kind of thing in the church. I want to suggest that we see it frequently, except that they are manifest as ideas and philosophies. Ideas and philosophies can possess people in much the same way that spirits do. The intellectual struggles that are manifest in the church and in the bloggernacle can be seen as a spiritual struggle between different spirits–not spirits as in attitudes, but possibly actual spiritual beings.
This association of spirits with ideas seems to be expressed in this verse from section 123:
It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.
Just as the Holy Spirit is associated with the words and ideas contained in the Holy Scriptures and lends them power beyond their content, might there not be spirits associated with other systems of thought that wield an influence beyond the mere content of the ideas?
Is there a Spirit of Feminism? A Spirit of Objectivism? A Spirit of Capitalism? A Spirit of Marxism? A Spirit of Historicism or Materialism? I think that there very well may be.
When we are approached with intellectual ideas should we not only inquire after their content, but also after what spirit associates with them or by what spirit were they inspired?
I do not think that it is implausible that a false spirit would tell you something that contains truth, or is even manifestly true, in order to get you under his or her influence so that by and by, having gained your trust, he or she can lead you down the wrong path with falsehoods. We should consider the danger of receiving correct information from the wrong source.
I submit that the danger of these ideas and philosophies is two fold.
The first danger lies not in their content alone but in the spirits associated with them and their ability to possess our hearts. As we receive those spirits we open ourselves to be led astray.
The second lies in sin. Our faith trumps the conflicts introduced by our reception of other philosophies. But faith and hope are gifts of the Holy Spirit. When we commit serious sin, that Holy Spirit withdraws and with it the gifts of faith and hope that it bequeaths. Without the Holy Ghost as a counter balance, our conflicts suddenly hold much more weight and can lead us to apostasy rather than repentance.
I have had members of my family both excommunicated for apostasy and abandon the church of their own accord because of apostasy. From my experiences with them I have come to the conclusion that apostasy doesn’t just happen all of a sudden. There is a path that leads toward apostasy and while not all those who wander for a time on that road will arrive to its disastrous end, they are on the path nevertheless. But it is not just the ideas associated with the road, but the spirit associated with them that leads to apostasy. There are many steppingstones toward apostasy, and we should be concerned when they are trod regularly within the bloggernacle.
I am concerned about the spirits at work in the bloggernacle. Even when I do not accept them, I feel their influence in my life even outside of the bloggernacle and it is enough to make me consider, at times, retiring from the bloggernacle indefinitely to avoid having to struggle with their influence.
On the whole, does the bloggernacle edify? Is the Holy Spirit present in its conversations? Is our faith and hope increased or decreased by our participation? Are the spirits associated with the ideas abroad in the bloggernacle of God?
All things are spiritual. We should concern ourselves with the influence of false spirits in our intellectual ideas and not only with the ideas themselves.
Our bishop recently shared one possible insight into following impressions. He said sometimes when we are fasting and praying for revelation on a particular question we receive impressions. Then, after receiving the impressions, doubts or second-guessing begin to creep in. In most of those cases, the important thing to do is to act on the initial impression quickly before the impression fades entirely or comes into question.
I wonder if the doubts and second-guessing that take place after initial spiritual impressions ever have anything to do with these deceiving spirits that you mention in the title and post.
Jonathan, I agree that we should be careful where we get our information from. Mostly, because there are few sources of information that are devoid of spin. I am, however, uncomfortable with saying that knowledge that (now Iam paraphrasing) that causes struggle is a bad thing.
I look to the history of the early saints. When many of the great Apostles of our faith were taught difficult principles by Joseph Smith himself, they were often sick and conflicted. Many left and apostatized. Many struggled “in the wilderness†but eventually came back. These were great men being taught by a prophet and still they struggled.
To be a faithful saint and progress is to struggle. To say that the struggle is a result of listening to the wrong spirits is untenable.
J. Stapley,
Section 50 speaks of “receiving” spirits. “And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God;” I associate “receive” here with the manner in which we use it during confirmation when we say “receive the Holy Ghost.” It is one thing to be offered difficult ideas and to comprehend them, it is another to “receive” them and be posessed of them.
Is their virtue in doubt?
I think there are two kinds of spirits. One is literally spirits – angelic beings trying to influence events. I’ll confess I don’t know how common that is nor how exactly they influence people. I believe they are there – from both sides. But I recognize other Mormons disbelieve this or think it at best rare.
The other spirit is the looser sense. It occurs in terms such as “the spirit of the times,” “the spirit of the work,” “team spirit” and so forth. It refers more to a kind of way of being. That is a whole worldview combined with an attitude towards that worldview. One way to think of it is to think of say a painter. The spirit of a painter includes a whole set of expectations regarding how one paints, how one values various tools along with the appropriate way those tools are used.
So when we talk about spirits that are bad, while I think most frequently it is tied to the notion of the adversary, I think an other way to look at it is simply as being caught up in the “philosophies of man” or those ways of being in a world that are contradictory to the gospel. (I have my suspicions this might explain some of the dualism of the Book of Mormon as well)
JMW, interesting thoughts. It’s nice you didn’t name individuals or weblogs you thought personify or exhibit the evil spirits you see roaming the Bloggernacle. That is a commendable act of discretion.
I think it is worth distinguishing between metaphorical use of the term “spirit,” as in “spirit of cooperation” and “spirit of criticism,” and the literal sense of the term, referring to disembodied spirits wandering to and fro across the land looking for bodies or blogs to inhabit or influence. Various scriptural passages using the term are often ambiguous as to what exactly the writer intended or how we readers should understand or apply them.
I fear that talking about ideas as “spirits” actually adds to the confusion. Or maybe I am simply possessed by the spirit of confusion?
Jonathan (#3) I don’t think I understood that comment. Is it esteeming the spirits as from God that is what is wrong? or recieving them at all? What is the difference between comprehending and recieving?
I’m not sure what you are asking.
Wow, great post! I thought I was the only one. My husband has told me repeatedly (and I hate to ignore the advice of a very wise and upright man!) that it is probably not good for me to spend too much time in the LDS blogs, as the spirit is often tainted with what at least borders on apostasy. I am so very grateful for those who are courageous enough to defend the gospel, that I hate to just quit. But I feel that I am not doing any good anyway, and it is definitely taking its toll on me. I very much appreciate your work, thanks.
Excellent post, which expresses a point that it is good to always remember when discussing the Gospel – whether in a virtual or brick-and-mortar world.
Speaking for myself, I do feel edified by the Bloggernacle. I probably spend too much time reading (and perhaps not enough time contributing) the various topics available, but a part of me wishes I could do nothing other than discuss the Gospel all day long.
The biggest reason why I do not contribute more often is because the points I would like to make have already been expressed (probably more eloquently) by others. I find a lot of agreement, or at least consensus, in the Bloggernacle. Conversely, when some posts challenge my the worldview I’ve grown comfortable to, I am grateful, since as I work through these transitory dilemmas, my faith is ultimately strengthened. This reassures me that the Bloggernacle path is not necessarily the road to apostasy.
That being said, each individual’s response to different topics, ideas, or controversies in the Bloggernacle is unique. My response, in particular, may be very different from the norm. I try to keep in mind the fact that not everyone perceives posts and comments the same way I do, but it is nevertheless difficult to avoid being self-biased. There may be many people who are disturbed by the candid and intellectually critical atmosphere we sometimes experience here.
Though personal testimonies are not always stated explicitly, I believe most contributors have pure intentions, and at the end of the day, we still share a unity of the faith.
Clark and Dave,
You both cite the fact that our culture uses the term “spirit” in two senses: 1. A spiritual, disembodied being 2. An essential principle of something. Spirit in this second sense became widely used after 1800 and is attested as early as 1690. As far as I can tell it almost always occurs in the construction “the Spirit of ________” or “____ Spirit” (team, school).
I can only find one passage of the Book of Mormon that seems likely to be employing the construction “Spirit of” in the modern sense and that is Captain Moroni’s second epistle to Pahoran: “And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom…”(Alma 60:25)
In the doctrine and covenants it appears to be used in a modern sense, but almost always in the construction “in the spirit of meekness”. Elsewhere it is very ambiguous.
The most common use by far of “spirit of _____” in the latter-day scriptures appears to be “by the spirit of prophesy” or “revelation” or “judgment” all of which is clearly associated and made possible by an actual spirit being: The Holy Ghost.
I think that the apparent ambiguity we see in the scriptures may be the result of an actual interrelationship between principles and spiritual beings that inspire or choose to associate with them and not because different definitions are employed by different parts of the text.
I think that the endowment gives us some reason to believe that being “caught up in the philosophies of men,” as Clark put it, is interrelated with the influence of false spirits.
I am reminded of the chapter near the end of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, where Ivan, the atheist, who earlier related the tale of the Grand Inquisitor, has a conversation with the devil in whom he does not believe.
It is also interesting that the intellectual elite throughout the history of our society, who often reject God or religion, often also dabble in spiritualism.
Wow – I just reread my post from yesterday. I think I did nothing but summarize the post. (Which I rather liked) That’ll teach me to post right after awaking from an unsuccessful nap.
To Jonathan, I don’t think “principle” is really what I mean by spirit. Although it’s close. There’s actually a Hebrew word often used in the Old Testament that captures the meaning perfectly. Alas, I’m at work and can’t look up my notes. The idea is more a way of living. Principle entails some “idea” or “law” that then guides all existence or some mode of existence. So we have things like “every effect has a cause” or even sayings like “the laborer is worthy of hire.” In a gospel sense a principle might be “you have to repent to return to God” or “sexual morality will bring stronger spirituality.” However none of these are a way of life.
A way of life would be in a sense, indescribale. It would be the difference between principles Jesus taught – typically in aphorisms and parables – and the actual life he lived. The distinction is captured in Paul’s comments about the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Although we say that so often that I think the meaning has been lost in a burden of cliche.
I think this is important when we look at terms like “the spirit of prophecy.” I think our inclination is to take that as simply having the Holy Ghost or receiving a revelation. Probably a more accurate way of looking at it is that the person is question has a whole way of living their life that both enables the spirit to be with them, enables them to feel and recognize the spirit, and enables them to act on and communicate it. I suspect that was partially why Jesus went into the wilderness, among other reasons. It’s also why we sometimes spend a great amount of time fasting and praying. It’s to change our whole way of thinking and acting.
An other way to look at it is to look at how a Stake Patriarch has to live so as to be in harmony with God and give accurate blessings. (Not all do of course, but I suspect many of us know people who’ve lived their lives in a fashion to be able to do that) An other example is one many of us have experienced – mission life. I suspect all of us recognize the difference now as opposed to being on our mission. It isn’t just avoiding modern media, culture and “philosophies of men.” It is a whole way of living that you never can quite put your finger on. You can’t say, “do this, this and this and then you’ll have the spirit of missionary work.” There’s never a time you can point to and say, “now I’m a missionary.” Yet, most missionaries, even if there were times on their mission they didn’t feel like they were a great missionary had times when they felt like they were in that spirit of mission work.
Danithew: What reason do we have for assuming that the first impressions you refer to are the good ones, and subsequent doubts are the bad ones? Isn’t it just as likely that our thoughts after further reflection are more correct than our initial impressions?
I think there is a scripture which seems to support Jonathan’s theory about spirits, also in section 50 of the D&C. Perhaps the distinction between the two types of spirits is not as great as some think:
“31: Wherefore, it shall come to pass, that if you behold a spirit manifested that you cannot understand, and you receive not that spirit, ye shall ask of the Father in the name of Jesus; and if he give not unto you that spirit, then you may know that it is not of God.
32: And it shall be given unto you, power over that spirit; and you shall proclaim against that spirit with a loud voice that it is not of God-“
This scripture specifically addresses the spirits of thought (which seem to be just as powerful as the “real” sprits in thier ability to lead mankind away from God), and tells us in what way we should approach these ideas and spirits of the world–through prayer, with a request to receive it from God, not from man. We are also told that if we follow this procedure, God will give us power over the thought or idea if it is not of him.
How many have used this method when receiving the teachings of the world-such as Feminism, Deconstructionism, etc? Sure, they may be your pet philosophies, but have you ever prayed about whether or not they are good, edifying, or of God? And if not, should we be arguing for them?
Elder Ballard spoke about false prophets and teachers among the membership of the church. He provided some examples:
-Self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church….
-Those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others.
-Those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality.
-Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages.
-To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.
-Those who declare that the Prophet Joseph Smith was a duplicitous deceiver…
-They challenge the First Vision as an authentic experience.
-They declare that the Book of Mormon and other canonical works are not ancient records of scripture.
-Those who arrogantly attempt to fashion new interpretations of the scriptures to demonstrate that these sacred texts should not be read as God’s words to His children but merely as the utterances of uninspired men, limited by their own prejudices and cultural biases.
-They… attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead
-They deny that God has given and continues to give revelation today to His ordained and sustained prophets.
How many of us are doing some or all of these things, or other things that are like unto them? How many of us are false teachers and prophets, or are teaching things that are not of God-especially in the bloggernacle?
Is it not just another deception by Satan, the idea that the spirits of worldly philosophies are just figurative, not literal, so it’s okay to toss them around, believe in them, even argue for them when they go against the word of God? Or do you not believe that Satan and the “deceiving” spirits are real either, but just symbolic? Personally, I think that’s just the easy way out–there are scriptures, talks, etc. that state that he is real.
Perhaps we should not allow allow the spirits that are not of God to posess us, though they may be temptingly trimmed in ideas that appeal to us, and perhaps even have small amounts of truth mixed in. We should be asking not only ourselves, but God: Are these the philosophies of the world, or of God?
Jonathan, I want to make two comments about your post. The first is that because I am a convert to the Church and did some bad stuff before being baptized I am more aware than many people to what the negative spirit “feels like.” I am very sensitive to it. It feels like the bad feelings I had before I was baptized. So, I am very quick to spot this spirit while on the internet. Certain sites “feel bad” to me — meaning the site is blocking the Light of Christ just like an umbrella blocks the sun. I will not go into specifics, but there are a few Mormon sites where I occasionally feel like that. All of the anti-Mormon sites feel like that all the time — they are black holes for the Spirit of Christ, and I avoid them assiduously.
On the other hand, there are numerous Christian non-Mormon sites that have the spirit of Christ. I have also encountered Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and other sites that have the spirit of Christ, and obviously many non-religious sites may have good spirits one way or another.
I believe it’s important to be sensitive to how these sites make us feel and avoid the ones that bring on negative feelings.
The other point is that many ideologies cause us to stray from the true Church and are dangerous ideologies. I want to be careful how I say this, but it is nevertheless based on personal experience. I have often heard things like, “Most Mormons are Republicans and I’m a liberal Democrat, and I can’t stand how Mormons think politically.” “Mormons are anti-feminist.” “Mormons do not support the environment.” I could go on and on. But here’s the point: it’s OK to be a liberal Democrat, feminist or fervent environmentalist. I may even agree with some points each of these ideologies makes. But it’s dangerous to say: 1)I am a liberal Democrat 2)I disagree with most Mormons, who are Republicans 3)it’s difficult for me to be around people I disagree with 4)What’s wrong with these stupid people in my ward, anyway, how could they possibly support Bush/Reagan/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rice? 5)I’m sick and tired of being around these people 6)maybe I won’t come to church as often 7)if all these people believe in this, I can’t be one of them.
Do you see the slippery slope? Is it possible that such ideologies are really inspired by negative spirits, not because they are wrong but because they foster the spirit of contention and hatred rather than love and humility? So, your post is right on in saying that the way we receive these ideologies is almost as important as the ideologies themselves.
Geoff, let me just suggest a parallel slippery slope, which I think is equally dangerous:
1) She is a liberal feminist Democrat.
2) Most Mormons are not liberal feminist Democrats
3) It’s difficult for me to be respectful of her or to weigh her arguments carefully, because they go against what most people I spend time with think.
4) Why is she coming to my ward, anyway, if she disagrees with most of these people?
5) I’m sick and tired of being around her; I’m not going to visit teach her anymore because I have bad feelings when I’m with her. Perhaps she’s possessed by the Spirit of Feminism, which I’m sure is evil.
6) I wish she wouldn’t keep coming to church
7) I don’t think she can be a Mormon if she believes all that
Kristine, you have helped me make the point I was trying to make very well. Thank you for your input.
Gary – I agree with you. I feel that the decieving spirits are those that take us away from the counsel in D&C 9. It’s very possible the doubts that creep in are the “stupor of thought” when a decision is incorrect. I have had many “first” impressions, that if followed, would have led me down an incorrect path. Fortunately, i have kept in mind that my heart AND my mind need to be in sync. I think decieving spirits focus on one or the other. Numerous times I have said to myself,
“I will do it because it feels right, even if I think it is a dumb idea” or “It sounds logical, so I will go forward, even though I have some real reservations that I can’t explain.”
Most of the time it usually turns out to be the wrong decision.
JMW – I hope I didn’t come across as being combatative (#6). I was/am sincere in my inquiry.
Rereading, I think that you meant “Is there virtue in doubt?” That I understand. But I would like your insights to the other questions I raised.
Heh. Sorry about the confusing typo Brother Stapley! :-p
I think receiving implies some level of internalizing or application of the idea.
I look at section 50 and in verses 31-32 it says that when a spirit is manifested we are to ask of the Father in the name of Jesus and he will either give that spirit to us or we will know that it is not of God and and he will give us power over that spirit to proclaim against it.
The brethren addressed in this section apparently “received” spirits without receiving them at the hand of God.
I think that perhaps the right approach is when we are presented with a particular philosophy, that we should approach God and ask Him to give it to us and that he will either give it to us, or give us power over it that we may proclaim against it.
We should receive ideas associated with the Holy Spirit and let them wield power over us. We should not receive ideas informed by other spirits, rather we should wield power over them.
I’m sorry. My mind is so cluttered that I’m not sure that I make any sense at all.
Jon, your mention of the atheist who speaks with the devil in the Brothers Karamazov is very interesting. It reminded me of this conversation Korihor had with the devil, posing as an angel:
“. . . for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after and unknown God. And he said unto me: Yeah, there is no God, and he taught me that which I should say.”
Hard to know whether Korihor’s telling the truth here. But let’s assume he is. Did he really just accept the words of a being he thought was an angel, who told him that people were worshiping a false God, and that also, there is no God? I’m sure the lie wasn’t cast in quite so preposterous terms, but it is amazing how set on disbelieving a person can be in spirits, even when being driven by them. Very good points, all.
Hey, I don’t know who ” Eve’s Scork” is, but I would like to! Do you have a blog that I missed somehow? Great comments!
Ryan,
I often suspect that Korihor was lying about the devil appearing as an angel. I think that the disbelief in spirits by those being driven by them you refer to is exactly what is being referred to in 2nd Nephi 28:22:
Korihor is often considered to as the intellectual atheist-materialist-naturalist in the Book of Mormon, yet Alma declares of Korihor:
I take “possessed of a lying spirit” here to be literally under the influence of a spiritual being and not metaphorical. I think that the rest of Alma’s statement about Korihor having put of the Holy Spirit and about the devil possessing power to “carry [Korihor] about, working devices” supports that view.
Korihor’s philosophies were influenced by and bound to the spirit to whom he was subject. Similar philosophies abound in our modern intellectual society and I suspect that they are bound to spirits as well.
Jonathon,
Are you asserting that people who teach things contra the gospel are literally possessed or directly influenced by actual demonic like spirits? I don’t think I have ever looked at those accounts quite that literally. Would you then posit that all who teach philosophies or beliefs anithema to the gospel are influenced by spirits? If it is always does this lead to free agency problems?
Very interesting post.
HL,
Yes, I am suggesting something like that. I would be interested in hearing more about the “free agency problems” you see in this.
It seems to me that we have agency to submit ourselves to the influence of one spirit or another, to choose our master as it were, but, as the scriptures say, we receive wages of the same. The Holy Spirit, unlike other spirits, does not take from us our agency. Having submitted ourselves to another spirit, however, we may be possessed by it to some degree. Deliverance comes through the atonement which returns to us our agency.
I see the free agency problems as something like this (I would be interested in what you think):
The idea that all who teach ideas contrary to the gospel are possessed to some extent by evil spirits seems almost like a mitigating factor–a sort of gospel liberalism. Thus, a person would reach the judgment bar for instance. God would say you are guilty of leading many away by teaching X false philosophy, contrary to my gospel. The hypothetical possessed teacher would respond: Yes, I initially made the mistake of looking into this idea after that though I was possessed by the evil spirit and thus should not be held accountable for any of my actions after I was possessed. Yes, I should be held guilty for the initial bad move, after that though the blame lies with the spirit.
A response to this hypothetical could be: hold the person responsible for all his actions. But this would seem contrary to the gospel. We are guilty for our own sins and not those of others–if control is taken from us we are only guilty for the sin of inviting the evil spirit after that it becomes the spirit’s sin since I have no control. Perhaps the response would be: well he has some control to resist. If that is the case, it would at least seem that the evil spirit mitigates the teacher’s responsibility. Thus, instead of 100% gulity or 0% guilty after the intial possession they are held 50% guilty or some other fraction.
I find this problematic for a couple reasons: does much of my guilt sit on the shoulders of evil spirits. I think I am responsible for my actions and that they are indeed mine. If evil spirits could persuade so many, what is the point of a test in mortality. Sure, many things can enslave us and make our decisions difficult (for example drug addicition) but in those cases it is not a thinking being with agency enslaving my actions. If others really had that much control over us (aka the far left argument that criminal penalities should be drastically loosened because of the influences in my childhood etc. that “force” me to make the wrong decision) why are we here at all?
If the argument is simply that evil spirits persuade us to teach that which is contrary to the gospel, and don’t actually possess/enslave us, I find the ideas far more persuasive. Functionally this would simply replace the concept of temptation with a more substantial explanation of what temptation actually is in certain circumstances: the promptings of evil spirits. However, I don’t take this to be what you mean.
Wow, Jonathan, you really take demonizing people you disagree with to a whole new level. I’d say that using this approach in sharing the gospel or ministering to the lost sheep is highly likely to conjure the spirit of contention.
Two thoughts. One, I really like the post because a lot of times I feel a sense of uneasiness with some of the subjects and attitudes emanating from certain blogs. I feel like it’s almost “cool” to be out of step with the mainstream of the Church. I for one have never felt that was my goal. To inquire for me means to grapple with why I do not understand the brethren or my priesthood leaders. I assume that they are correct (I mean the general authorities) and then try to understand how I can live what they are teaching. I do not doubt them. I love, honor, and support them. Yes, they might make mistakes. But I have found that faultfinding breeds distrust and ill-will (John Widtsoe; don’t have the book at home).
Second, the idea of the spirit of the Bloggernacle–What is the Spirit or influence that the Holy Ghost has upon us? I think one major question being discussed by many is can we disagree with the brethren or dissent from their opinions? While I think that this exception is possible it is not the rule or guiding direction to gaining spiritual understanding.
“The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of Truth…And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things” (D&C 93:26-28).
I believe that truth and understanding come from obedience not disagreement. Of course we are not to follow blindly, but how do we gain our understanding? Nephi sets the pattern when he faces a huge disagreement with his father about what the family should do: he prayed for understanding and the Spirit softened his heart so that he could obey (1 Nephi 2:16).
JMW, I think your suggestion is pretty awful. All that it accomplishes is to brand any idea with which you disagree as demon-possessed. It makes it easy to reject difficult ideas or uncomfortable facts. Not only does your analysis of ideological diversity result in a comfortable narrow-mindednes, but, as Rosalynde points out, it deligitimizes and very literally demonizes all opponents. It short-circuits any basis for compromise, finding common ground, or building on common beliefs.
Moreover, your black-and-white, angels-and-demons way of analyzing difference attempts to establish rigid orthodoxy as the only legitimate position by appealing to a radically speculative formulation of Mormon demonology. We just don’t have much established doctrine in this area, and for good reason. Trying to build a case for orthodoxy on such a speculative foundation is a bit ironic, no?
Sure, it’s a good idea to be aware of where an idea comes from. There may be ideas or questions that have implicit assumptions that are inimical to our beliefs. But if you think of all dissenters as demon-possessed, the implicit assumption is that they should be ruthlessly driven out, or worse. How about thinking of them as “lost sheep,” instead? How we think about these things has real consequences for our actions.
Jonathan and Rosalynde – you are setting up your own set of simplistic dichotomies (those who demonize their opponents and those who do not).
What if there is something to what he says? Are we so sophisticated we no longer believe that Satan has an active influence in the world?
Not that I totally agree with JMW, but it is something to consider, rather than brushing it off with “I’m more nuanced than thou” comments.
Well put, Ivan.
I don’t think that JMW is talking down to or demonizing anyone by trying to ask the questions that he is asking. Nevertheless, if he’s bothered to read many of my posts, he way well have felt a very bad spirit indeed.
Ivan–I understood myself to be making a little joke about “demonizing” to express my skepticism, not to be setting up any sort of dichotomy or displaying my own nuance.
It is not entirely clear to me how JMW is using the term “false spirit”–as a figure for persuasion or argument, or as a literal unbodied fallen spirit. It seems to me that LDS demonology is very literal in this area–indeed, the argument that Satan exerts real influence in our lives would seem to argue against JMW’s claim–and thus would favor the latter. I find it highly unlikely that somehow a literal unbodied fallen spirit could inhabit a diffuse, almost impossibly varied discursive field, and somehow by that means gain access to our agency; I see absolutely no scriptural justification for this position. If, on the other hand, he is merely using “spirit” as a metaphor for the very real power that argument and discourse can exert on perception and behavior–indeed, on institutions and social structures–then I agree entirely, but would suggest that “evil spirit” is an unnecessarily inflammatory and hostile metaphor.
While ideas and “spirit” probably are related. I think we ought be very, very cautious labeling ideas. For one, similar ideas can appear in different contexts. It is sometimes easy to label one idea and then have a guilt by similarity. The obvious example is communism, socialism, marxism, communitarianism. Very similar ideas in many ways, but not all of the same “spirit.”
Most importantly we typically have little ability to discern which idea is problematic independent of a whole movement.
To me the important thing to keep in mind is the commands regarding judging in the scriptures. I think that the golden rule ought apply.
I think Rosalynde’s comments are well made as well. It is very unclear to me exactly what we mean by “spirit” when attacking people.
Are we talking about ideas as used by some maelevolent entities? The way a Democrat or Republican politician uses ideas to bring about some desired end? Are we talking about secret combinations and spirits in a kind of political battlefield? It’s an interesting notion, but it seems to me pretty hard to say anything convincingly one way or the other on it.
Do we mean spirit in the sense that ideas are part of a way of living or contribute to a way of living? The way that say the notion of relativism brings about degradation of certain moral stances?
Do we mean something else entirely? Sometimes it sounds almost like JMW is speaking platonically where there are spirits behind ideas and when we use or think about an idea we are actually being affected by the spirit or demon behind it. That was a popular way of thinking in the ancient world and survived at least up to the scientific era and in some strains beyond. But this isn’t the Renaissance now. I’m not sure we think about ideas in that fashion.
Perhaps some clarification about what is meant is in order. Certainly Satan has influence in our world and certainly our writing is an act as are other acts, open to juding by the Holy Ghost. If we write and the spirit leaves, we probably ought not write. However I think we err if we think that entails something objectively true for all. As Rosalynde mentioned, what might be right for one might be wrong for an other. What is a medical book teaching human anatomy for one might be pornography leading away from the spirit for an other. What counts as often as not is what the spirit wants us to do. We ought not assume that the spirit wants the same exact thing for all.
Thanks for all of your comments everyone. This idea is not well fleshed out, but it has been a valuable discussion I think, and has helped me to think through it better.
HL, your thoughts about agency and responsability are very good. However, I wonder if we run into the same problems with the idea of addiction as we do with possession? Can’t we say “I made a mistake in getting involved, but my actions thereafter are not my fault because I was addicted?” I am still thinking through what kind of influence spirits might wield over us after we submit to them. Clearly we still have to be agents and responsible for our actions. Perhaps possession only means they exert a degree of resistable compulsion, someting that we can actively resist but tend toward nevertheless.
Rosalynd, I am not being metaphorical at all. I am thinking in exactly the fashion that Clark describes as platonically or pre-scientifically.
Jonathan Green, I do not see how loving the individual while hating the spirit that they have chosen to follow is significantly different from loving the sinner but hating the sin. The brethern have repeated told us that our actions are related to our thoughts, and our thoughts are influenced by the ideas that we do accept, my model only extends the idea so that the ideas that we accept subject us to some degree to the influence of spirits.
And, as is usual, a few of you are ignoring the vital issue of stewardship. Each of us has the responsability to pray for the spirit of discernment to be able to decide which ideas come from God and which from other sources, yet none of us have the authority and stewardship to impose our discernment on another. Those with stewardship over us may discern the spirits for us, and we are bound by their direction. I have not tried to impose my discernment upon any of you. I have only suggested that each of us should be actively seeking the gift of God so that we may discern those spirits at operation in the ideas we discuss in the bloggernacle.
Jonathan,
Thanks for a fascinating post. I think you are right on, for what it’s worth. Why is it difficult to believe that the enemy uses false ideas and philosophies in addition to more garden-variety temptations? Whatever the mechanics are of false ideologies–whether there is an actual spirit assigned to promulgate specific falsehoods or not–your point seems perfectly legitimate. Perhaps that is because I have had the same experience you’ve had in regard to the bloggernacle. In fact, that’s part of the reason I’ve withdrawn for a period of time.
There is a specific human weakness I’ve observed over time. People in sub-cultures tend to have their own strengths and weaknesses–their own particular set of temptations. We tend to normalize our own behavior, e.g. take whatever our own actions and beliefs are, and assume they are normal. In essence, we decide that these behaviors can’t be wrong because we do them and we’re good people. In almost any sub-culture, this happens. When I was at BYU in theatre, I noticed that a lot of very good people basically tolerated a variety of sinful behavior (nothing excommonicable, but sinful nonetheless). The behavior was strikingly similar in a wide variety of people. However, our created culture supported this behavior and made it difficult for people to realize that it was wrong. In essence–everyone does it.
Could that be happening in the bloggernacle? We are all prone to intellectual pursuits–discussion, argumentation, examination, etc. Is it possible that as a sub-culture we have created a place where we reinforce each other’s worst tendencies? Are we indulging in false spirits blindly, feeling that doing so is just dicussion, just part of the regular business of the bloggernacle when in fact, it may not be appropriate?
(This is somewhat vague, I have a two year old I’m watching, so my attention is somewhat diverted. I apologize if this make no sense)
Geoff B and Kristine–I think the point is not that liberals are bad or conservatives are bad, but rather, that identifying as a liberal/conservative/anything else more than as a saint, and letting the epistemologies of the ideology influence gospel decisions is problematic. Kristine, I would home teach you even if you are a liberal feminist mormon.
Braden, I agree, and I think that was the point I was trying to make in my post. I already home teach liberal feminist Mormons and many other “unorthodox” Mormons. (I say “unorthodox” because in Miami we have many, many unorthodox people). Our goal is to get as many people as possible to church regardless of their political beliefs or for that matter their beliefs on just about anything, including the doctrines of the Church. In the wards that I have belonged to, if liberal feminist Mormons don’t feel comfortable it’s due to their own issues, not because anybody has mentioned anything to him/her about politics.
I think you made the point very well, Geoff. It’s just that Kristine, being a liberal feminist Mormon got all upset and I thought I would try to be a peacemaker. 🙂
Well, now that you two are done slapping each other on the back…
I read a talk by Pres. Packer where he addressed the issue of being a saint before anything else. It was language like “I’m not an enviromnetalist or a marxist or a neo-marxist enviromentalist. I am a latter-day saint.” I would appreciate anyone who could point me to this talk. I have being looking all over for it for the past couple years and can’t seem to unearth it. Enough time has passed that I am wondering if I hallucinated the article. Any proof that I am not hallucinating would be very appreciated.
Braden, Geoff, I’m not a “liberal feminist Mormon”; I’m a Mormon who who loves music and hasn’t made it through “Come, Come Ye Saints” dry-eyed in a couple of decades, who is trying to be a Christian and a good mother and a housekeeper who can at least keep the Board of Health at bay and the president of the PTA and a student and the ward choir director and a Relief Society teacher and…
You get the point (actually, it was *your* point)–the fact that my political leanings are a bit to the left of many Mormons, and that I have some ideas about how the church might more fully utilize the gifts of its female members is completely peripheral to what feels like my *self*, and so when people pull out those things as the salient features of my identity, and then use them as a reason to question my faithfulness or commitment or relation to them as a sister, I’m both puzzled and hurt. I imagine the same thing happens to my brothers and sisters when I thoughtlessly lump them into the “scary mean rich conservative orthodox Republican” category and quit noticing who they really are. Nobody is a “liberal feminist Mormon” or an “unorthodox” Mormon or a “conservative gender-essentialist Mormon” or an “orthodox” Mormon. We’re all engaged in the process of making ourselves into Mormons and figuring out which parts of our personalities fit and which have to be transformed by grace.
And, Braden, I’d love to have you as a home teacher 🙂
Kristine,
Kristine, I totally agree with you. I was trying to be glib and humorous in my most recent comment. I apologize if it was offensive. For what it’s worth, I don’t see you in that way, but rather, as ” a Mormon who who loves music and hasn’t made it through “Come, Come Ye Saints” dry-eyed in a couple of decades, who is trying to be a Christian and a good mother and a housekeeper who can at least keep the Board of Health at bay and the president of the PTA and a student and the ward choir director and a Relief Society teacher and…”
I shall stop trying to imitate Kingsley. Sorry!
HL,
I think I remember reading that, too. I’ll check an anthology of talks I have. In the meantime, have you looked in “Teach Ye Dilligently”?
OOK, from the original post, and from the comments made by Brother Johnathan (does that sound too strange? With all the early LDS names for many of these group blogs it makes me want to call every one brother or sister and then thier first name.) is speaking more about literal spirits than many of the comments seem to assume- however in talking about possession how about this interpretation:
When confirmed we are told to “receive the holy ghost” we have to open our hearts our minds and do what we can to be worthy. We are then able to have the constant companionship of the spirit- we are filled with the holy spirit-
Despite being filled with the spirit we are able to choose and often do choose to act against God and thus the Holy Spirit has less influence over us.
In terms of literal spirits in opposition to God- they can not stay where the Holy Spirit resides-
however just as we repent, are baptized, cleansed and then able to “receive the holy ghost” when we sin- when we cut ourselves off from God when we choose to open ourselves to hate, contention, pride, etc. we also open ourselves to influence from evil/wicked spiritual influences. These influences don’t control us- BUT they do influence us. We are able to make our own decisions- however when we follow the influence of that spirit it’s influence grows- just as when we follow the influence of the Holy Ghost its influence grows.
Literal possession by an evil spirit isn’t simply being a puppet to a spirit that has occupied a body- it is being negatively influence.
We are accountable for our actions- that influence doesn’t change that. If it did then we wouldn’t be rewarded for doing good while influenced by the Holy Spirit of God.
Can we look at ideas, thoughts, philosophies, doctrines, etc the same way absent of literal spirits? Yes- I think that as we open our minds to an influence or framework and close our minds to other influences it changes how we act, how we think, who we are. We are possessed by good or evil- we strive to overcome our duality of nature- we become more Godlike by closing our minds to hate and opening our minds to charity.
I think that both interpretations are true- we are influenced by the spirit of God- and if that is literally true than it is also possible to be influenced by negative spirits. However- I think most of the influence is due to who we are- what we choose to believe and how that in turn influences our actions. I think that nearly everyone is possessed by negative spirits in the metaphorical sense- we all have things that are out of whack in our personality- things we don’t do well, ways in which we are too judgmental, ways in which we are uncharitable, etc. I think that possession by a literal evil spirit is somewhat more rare- the same way that some one being really filled and constantly motivated by the Holy Ghost in every instant, constantly being revelatory, etc is rare. But there must be middle ground. I don’t seek and receive personal revelation as much as I should- and am not as filled with the spirit as other men and women of God. Likewise there must be people who are influenced by negative spirits- but to small extents that we wouldn’t think of as “being possessed†by those spirits.