I'm a former member of the church - From a faithful practitioner's perspective, the Holy Spirit acts as a moral guide. He's intended to help you identify right and wrong, and provide guidance in decision making. If one is living righteously you're promised to have that guidance available to you. That guidance is received personally. Most people think of it as strong feelings they have in situations.
I think the idea here is that that guidance will help people avoid being deceived by deepfakes.
> 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-topi...
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
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.
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.
That's silly. Setting aside just how many Christians will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into nonsense like QAnon because the "Holy Spirit" is literally just vibes, deepfakes don't fool people because they're morally wrong, they fool people because they're subjectively indistinguishable from reality.
Curiously, it is repeatable in my personal experience. I find everything goes better (and I mean everything), when I listen and don't stubborly do things my way. More at my web site (in profile, tech-simple, nothing for sale).
I'm also of the faith and of course we don't describe it that way in most church discourse because it'd lose one of the most valued functions: framing human experience in a sacred narrative and privileging LDS participation and perspective.
Probably not correct to chalk all transcendent experiences up to that, and sometimes church discourse also steers towards real effort in genuinely engaging fine points of recognition, cultivation, and (occasionally) limits of extra-rational faculties and their integration into overall efforts at perception and understanding (and I consider this a helpful formative part of my development), but frequently we behave in a way that doesn't take the topic seriously as much beyond a vehicle for institutional affirmation & sacralized participation, and that's leaving alone times when we discount or even outright discard that study-it-out-in-your-mind step.
But hey, I get it, maybe keeping revelation yoked to a few valued goals is reasonable enough, because the quality of self-reported holy spirit guidance is best case bell-curve shaped and the lower 50% slopes crazy. Pretty sure every Latter-day Saint has heard some crazy stuff passed off as personal revelation (from either a kooky ward member or that handful of leaders that you're not sure the call was quite right on) and learns how to talk around that. Maybe it's better to have a low ceiling with a high floor.
> the quality of self-reported holy spirit guidance is best case bell-curve shaped and the lower 50% slopes crazy
This made me chuckle :D.
I'm trying to help others understand that it's not simply intuition. There is a significant distinction, at least according to my experience. It's a disservice to try and pass it off as such.
I’m also of this faith. I’m describing it in a way that others will understand. When I’ve described the Holy Ghost to non member friends, they usually end up on it being my intuition.
This comment is in direct conflict with the actual teachings of the faith.
From the introduction to the Book of Mormon, a central Holy Scripture to the faith:
> We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)
Sounds like Mormons are only going after believers of Christ.
I find this often in religious debate and discussion. In the end the arguments make sense if you believe there is a God and that the Bible captures God’s message. Without those two preconditions there is nothing worth debating, no minds will be changed, no progress made, because to a non believer the word of the Bible has no more value than any other work of fiction.
I have a Mormon neighbor who did his missionary work in Thailand. My wife is Thai, so he came by to chat with us once with some missionaries who had visited us. I spoke to him for a while about his experience in trying to evangelize to a country that is 90+% Buddhist, and in which Buddhism plays a huge role in Thai culture. What I found fascinating is that in Thailand, a Mormon missionary was pretty much on a level playing field with any other Christian missionary. If a Thai person was considering a flavor of Christianity, the Mormon church isn't particularly "fringe" in the way it might be perceived by a Christian who is listening to a Mormon missionary in the US.
> Sounds like Mormons are only going after believers of Christ.
I can see why one may think this to be the case, because it invites you to pray in the name of Christ. In order to accept the invitation you need to be willing to offer that prayer. But the invitation starts with "We invite all men everywhere". It's not intended to exclude anyone.
Beautiful fig leaf right there. Let's just say that my experience with the mormon church was much about emotional manipulation and praying on the vulnerable and less about seeking of the truth.
I think the idea here is that that guidance will help people avoid being deceived by deepfakes.