Can Feelings Be Trusted?

[CMDRExorcist]

You bring up a very good point. Too many people are ignorant of the Bible and therefore fall into the trap of trusting their feelings instead of seeking to know God's expressed will. Various cults use this tactic to garner members. It is hardly limited to young people. We live in an age of extreme biblical ignorance.

So, my question is framed within the context of a biblical worldview in which the Bible is readily available to the seeker and the seeker has a choice between reading it and finding God's will or ignoring it and trusting his own feelings, instead.

What exactly does biblical ignorance have to do with trusting feelings? Trusting one's feelings does not necessarily mean that a person is in going against the Will of God.

AmishHacker

 

[MormonFriend]

Bump for 7xb

Originally Posted by TasteForTruth
So, if God tells something to one's heart, that is not deception, but trusting one's heart after a process of introspection is deception?

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb
Thinking that one's feelings are God's message to oneself can be quite deceptive, especially when these feelings contradict God's revealed will in scripture, would you not agree?

You say the feelings contradict scripture, which presumes that person understands scripture, and that presumption includes that the Spirit previously revealed that understanding to him because the things of God are only understood by the Spirit. Are you suggesting that the Spirit of God can dwell within your heart and reveal truth to your mind, and your heart will feel nothing?

Must keep one thing clear. Feelings are not the source of the message or understanding. Feelings are an involuntary reaction (and a very pure experience of what pleasure truly is) that results from the joy of having God's presence within, and the joy of obtaining clear understanding of things our human senses fail to perceive.

Repeating a caution. If the heart is attached to worldly pursuits and pleasures, you might as well be tasting a strawberry while you are still chewing on a jalapeno.
​

 

[A New Dawn]

I am happy that you are feeling better!
If I deciphered your last statement correctly, you are saying Mormonism puts aside God's promises to us that come through His Son. How so? I have seen this assessment of our beliefs when people take our piece of the puzzle and place it in their big picture.

I agree that the Mormon life keeps us on the go, and requires personal sacrifice. And that is actually how it is supposed to fit in the big picture of our puzzle, for those who care to piece it together. Joseph Smith taught: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation;..."

I have noted that all the things we are asked to do is either directly or indirectly linked to service for others. The main reason that it takes so much of our time, is that only a few (I have heard the figure of 10%) of the members carry the load.

My personal view point tells me that when we focus on others, and not on ourselves, and everyone is on this same page, look how many people are looking out for you. I see a small glimpse of heaven in this. Would you rather live in a community where everyone looked out for themselves, without concern for others, or where everyone looked out for each other, and not for themselves?

With that thought, I can see how the "Mormon life" prepares us for a better place, and separates tares that would rather focus on their own needs. But in no way do we criticize "the slackers" because this is a conversion process in progress. We try to motivate them with love to serve others, and we must joyfully take up the slack. Did Jesus do any less for us?

The problem is is that the LDS religion is usurping the place of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit's job to guide is to all understanding, to open our minds to the will of the Father, to help us be conformed to the image of the Son. It is not the religion's place at all to "produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation". God produces that faith. God is the author and finisher of our faith. He creates it and He completes it. Any faith that is produced by any other person/organization/object only produces faith in that person/organization/object. None of it is salvific.

 

[MormonFriend]

The problem is is that the LDS religion is usurping the place of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit's job to guide is to all understanding, to open our minds to the will of the Father, to help us be conformed to the image of the Son. It is not the religion's place at all to "produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation". God produces that faith. God is the author and finisher of our faith. He creates it and He completes it. Any faith that is produced by any other person/organization/object only produces faith in that person/organization/object. None of it is salvific.

There is true religion, and there is man made religion. We agree that the Holy Spirit is the only Source to know the difference. We all must discover that Source. Jesus made that possible by teaching His disciples how it is done, and ordained them to teach others. He organized a Church that was based on their leadership, and equipped them with the gifts of the Spirit, including revelation, to compensate for their personal human weakness. The apostles were imperfect, but followed the Savior's instructions as they themselves learned to overcome the world. Following them, and giving heed to their counsels would bring us to the understandings by the Spirit, including this: James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Service and sacrifice in the name of pure religion.

How many examples do we find where the apostles encountered hearts among the followers that could not perceive their message? Why did God not produce the faith among them? It was not God that failed them. People today seem to believe that God changes people by some method of removing the bad parts and installing the new ones. If that is what it takes, why did He not install the correct parts in the first place? It was, is, and always will be the people failing God by not embracing and putting into practice the package presented to them called the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is His religion, and obedience to its precepts is what changes us. That is how God changes us.

We learn faith by embracing and obeying the truths revealed by God, that we actually do not understand at first. It is given in the form of milk as our faith begins to increase. It takes faith to go from step to step, so faith is exercised and grows. Many do not get past this early development stage, as illustrated in Hebrews 5 and several other examples in scripture.

You are absolutely correct when you say: "Any faith that is produced by any other person/organization/object only produces faith in that person/organization/object." That has been the downfall of mankind since the apostles were killed, and eventually the Church of Rome absorbed the name of Christianity. And every division since is simply another person/organization/object that produces another man made faith. Those are non-salvific, because what Jesus first organized and established was no longer established ..... temporarily. The gates of hell would not prevail, even though it made its attempt, and evil was exposed. "...The restoration of all things" was always part of the plan to prevail.

"Pure religion" was restored. Its validity is not perceived until a seeker goes through the "milk stages" as described above. And it is easy to mock and find fault because of the imperfect people that God has called to restore it, and even to administrate the affairs currently. No different than before. God has equipped those whom He called with gifts of the Spirit, including revelation, to compensate for their weaknesses. If that was not the case, this Restored Church and Gospel would never have survived the first few years. It is the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and is filling the earth, a prophecy that must be fulfilled before the coming of Christ.

I do not believe there is a "religion" that better exemplifies and practices the art of "pure religion" by serving the fatherless and widows, and inspires its members to " keep himself unspotted from the world" than this Restored Church of Jesus Christ. It demands much of us, yes. But that is God's gift to us for the development of faith.

 

[A New Dawn]

I do not believe there is a "religion" that better exemplifies and practices the art of "pure religion" by serving the fatherless and widows, and inspires its members to " keep himself unspotted from the world" than this Restored Church of Jesus Christ. It demands much of us, yes. But that is God's gift to us for the development of faith.

I believe that the LDS church inspires it's members to allegience to the church. I do not believe that the esoteric rituals that the church requires of it's members are Christ-centered, they are egocentric, designed to elevate man rather than God. I believe that those practices and the requirements to get into the temple to perform those practices detract from true service to God. You can't serve yourself and God at the same time. If all those practices, and the requirements needed to perform those practices were done away with, which percentage of the membership would be out there doing for God, anyway?

I believe that all who truly follow Christ (the true church) exemplify the commands to love God and to love their neighbors. And only God, no human organization, can inspire that.

 

[MormonFriend]

Bump for 7xb

Another bump for bbbbbbb

Originally Posted by MormonFriend

Originally Posted by TasteForTruth
So, if God tells something to one's heart, that is not deception, but trusting one's heart after a process of introspection is deception?

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb
Thinking that one's feelings are God's message to oneself can be quite deceptive, especially when these feelings contradict God's revealed will in scripture, would you not agree?

You say the feelings contradict scripture, which presumes that person understands scripture, and that presumption includes that the Spirit previously revealed that understanding to him because the things of God are only understood by the Spirit. Are you suggesting that the Spirit of God can dwell within your heart and reveal truth to your mind, and your heart will feel nothing?
​

Must keep one thing clear. Feelings are not the source of the message or understanding. Feelings are an involuntary reaction (and a very pure experience of what pleasure truly is) that results from the joy of having God's presence within, and the joy of obtaining clear understanding of things our human senses fail to perceive.

Repeating a caution. If the heart is attached to worldly pursuits and pleasures, you might as well be tasting a strawberry while you are still chewing on a jalapeno.
​

 

[drstevej]

There is true religion, and there is man made religion.

Micah (Judges 17) is an example of a man made religion with a restored priesthood.

And Micah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. Then said Micah, Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.

Later, the Danites hijacked Micah's religion and when Micah complains (Judges 18), they say...

And they turned their faces, and said unto Micah, What aileth thee, that thou comest with such a company?

And he said, Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and ye are gone away: and what have I more? and what is this that ye say unto me, What aileth thee?

• Joseph Smith forms a religion.
• Joseph Smith sets up a new priesthood.
• Brigham Young heads to Utah with the religion leaving Emma behind with the body of Joseph Smith.

Interesting what one finds searching the Scriptures.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Micah (Judges 17) is an example of a man made religion with a restored priesthood.



Later, the Danites hijacked Micah's religion and when Micah complains (Judges 18), they say...

• Joseph Smith forms a religion.
• Joseph Smith sets up a new priesthood.
• Brigham Young heads to Utah with the religion leaving Emma behind with the body of Joseph Smith.

Interesting what one finds searching the Scriptures.

Now, now, this thread is not about searching the Scriptures, but searching our feelings. Please share with us how you really feel about these things.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb
Thinking that one's feelings are God's message to oneself can be quite deceptive, especially when these feelings contradict God's revealed will in scripture, would you not agree?

"You say the feelings contradict scripture, which presumes that person understands scripture, and that presumption includes that the Spirit previously revealed that understanding to him because the things of God are only understood by the Spirit. Are you suggesting that the Spirit of God can dwell within your heart and reveal truth to your mind, and your heart will feel nothing?

Must keep one thing clear. Feelings are not the source of the message or understanding. Feelings are an involuntary reaction (and a very pure experience of what pleasure truly is) that results from the joy of having God's presence within, and the joy of obtaining clear understanding of things our human senses fail to perceive.

Repeating a caution. If the heart is attached to worldly pursuits and pleasures, you might as well be tasting a strawberry while you are still chewing on a jalapeno."

I asked you a very straightforward question and I am waiting for you to answer it. A simple yes or no will do.

Please reread my response and show me where I said that feelings contradict scripture. Hint, I said that feelings can be deceptive, especially when they contradict scripture.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thinking that one's feelings are God's message to oneself can be quite deceptive, especially when these feelings contradict God's revealed will in scripture, would you not agree?

Your question assumes that one already knows that specific written words constitute God's will for the reader. By what means is it made manifest to one not yet possessing such knowledge—a young person who has never read the Bible, for example—that the words are, indeed, from God?

I cannot answer your question until the assumptions inherent in the conditions of your question are accounted for.

You bring up a very good point. Too many people are ignorant of the Bible and therefore fall into the trap of trusting their feelings instead of seeking to know God's expressed will. Various cults use this tactic to garner members. It is hardly limited to young people. We live in an age of extreme biblical ignorance.

So, my question is framed within the context of a biblical worldview in which the Bible is readily available to the seeker and the seeker has a choice between reading it and finding God's will or ignoring it and trusting his own feelings, instead.

This does not address your assumption, nor my question. Not at all.

Bump

 

[bbbbbbb]

Bump

Bump

 

[TasteForTruth]

Bump

So, does this mean you're not going to address your assumption or my question?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, does this mean you're not going to address your assumption or my question?

So, does this mean you're not going to address your assumption or my question?

It seems that we are reaching an impasse here, are we not?

 

[TasteForTruth]

It seems that we are reaching an impasse here, are we not?

If you believe that our discussion has reached an impasse, I cannot do thing one about that, but I do not see an impasse in our exchange. At least, not as I understand the term "impasse."

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you believe that our discussion has reached an impasse, I cannot do thing one about that, but I do not see an impasse in our exchange. At least, not as I understand the term "impasse."

Well, you are unwilling to answer my question that I posed to you and I am unwilling to answer yours until you answer mine. IMO that constitutes an impasse, does it not?

 

[drstevej]

Seems like there is an impasse about whether there is an impasse.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Seems like there is an impasse about whether there is an impasse.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The fact remains that, in relation to the topic of the thread (can feelings be trusted?), bbbbbbb presented a situation in which a certain assumption was inherent, and then asked for a judgment to be made in relation to the situation as it relates to the OP:

Thinking that one's feelings are God's message to oneself can be quite deceptive, especially when these feelings contradict God's revealed will in scripture, would you not agree?

The assumption—that it is known to the reader that words written thousands of years ago are God's will for him—has yet to be accounted for. And rather than address it, bbbbbbb merely rambled about how people are ignorant of the Bible, cults, young people, biblical ignorance, worldview, readily available, and so on...:

Too many people are ignorant of the Bible and therefore fall into the trap of trusting their feelings instead of seeking to know God's expressed will. Various cults use this tactic to garner members. It is hardly limited to young people. We live in an age of extreme biblical ignorance.

So, my question is framed within the context of a biblical worldview in which the Bible is readily available to the seeker and the seeker has a choice between reading it and finding God's will or ignoring it and trusting his own feelings, instead.

Nothing here addresses the assumption. So if there is an impasse, it is manifest only in bbbbbbb's refusal to strip his hypothetical of its inherent bias.

 

[drstevej]

TfT you are analyzing bbbbbbb's posts to see if what he says is so. Should not you be consulting your feelings to do this?

Your actions make his case.

 

[TasteForTruth]

TfT you are analyzing bbbbbbb's posts to see if what he says is so. Should not you be consulting your feelings to do this?

According to whom? You? If that is how you would approach his statement, that is your business, but I'd appreciate your not attempting to impose your assumptions on me. Thanks.

Your actions make his case.

His case? Well, "his case," as is referenced in my posts, assumes that a bunch of words written in a book thousands of years ago are "God's will" for anyone who picks up the book and reads them, and that the reader should not appeal to anything or anyone to establish that fact, but should dismiss any feelings that bbbbbbb feels run contrary to the words of the yet-to-be-verified-as-God's-will-to-the-reader book. That is his case. And you're suggesting that my analysis "makes" this case? OK. Well, how, exactly?