That brings up a thought – Jesus didn’t really go to church or even found a “church” in the conventional sense at that point, at least not based on the written record. The apostles organized on his behalf I suppose, but the record is nebulous about how Christ-contemporary Saints gathered to worship. It seemed a lot more casual, like in the earliest days in the restoration. People coming together in someone’s house, having a meal, and talking about things of God.

example: While I was attending a Christian church, I became friends with a couple of women who are self proclaimed witches. I do know that our belief systems were on opposite ends of the spectrum. One day, one of them turned to me and told me that I was more Christian than any other person she’d met. I was just being myself. Not showing disdain for her belief. NOT showing disdain for her. She didn’t change her ways, but who know what may happen in the future. All I know is this, seeds were planted that day because I was not being religious towards her.

The only righteousness of ultimate salvation is to to be declared righteous and unseparated before God. This righteousness (justification) only comes by faith in God through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3) Obedience does not make us righteous, but it is a holy, righteous and genuine response coming from our faith and gratitude for the mercy, grace and righteousness of Jesus Christ offered in exchange for our sinfulness and separation. Religious observance, obedience and exactness to the Law that is performed as a course to justification is not righteousness; nevertheless it is not sin as it teaches us the ways of God, the avoidance of sin, and can lead us to faith (Romans 7). The righteousness of the law becomes revealed and fulfilled in those who don’t walk after the manner of religiosity and externality, but after the guidance of the Spiritual (Romans 8).

Christian religion — the way, the path, the commandments, the law, the church, the community — is fulfilled, made alive, vibrant and effective in faith and (capital-S) Spirituality. That doesn’t make all religious exercise “pure” or “true”. (James is helpful in illuminating what action defines pure religion, though it still leaves a lot of responsibility on us to seek the Spirit in discerning pure religion from the doubtful and disputed.) A fulfilled law and righteousness by faith is not an excuse to sin (Romans 6, 13) nor can we avoid the call to community with our fellow believers (Romans 15). Like others have cautioned, to remove the symbiotic relationship that the Spirit has with pure religion is to take the capital-S out of spirituality, making it dead.

I think that being religious in the sense of the original post is possible to do in a hollow non-spiritual way, but I believe the real definition of spirituality is that if you are connected with God’s spirit you will be naturally moved to action, thus it can’t be separated from “righteousness”.

Then I think we agree; we’re just saying it differently.

I must say though given some of our sacred ordinances, the term “religion” should be used with a fair dose of trepidation. Frankly, I have engaged Protestant Christianity, Buddhism, and even Islam…and I find Mormonism to be the most flexible (a faith must have a structure to be truly called flexible…otherwise, it’s just this nebulous essence of ideas) and more conducive to intellectual thought than any other religion. Most religious traditions disparage that itching feeling of incompleteness that continuing revelation implies. As one scholar noted on anti-intellectualism in the LDS faith, early Latter Day Saints did not really conceive of their being “secular” knowledge…all was spiritual.

Let’s face it…Christ isn’t just our Savior…he’s our teacher as well…and Joseph Smith introduced us to a Christ who proposes to save us, in part, by taking a walk with us through the woods of our own ignorance…doing his best to light the way provided that we stay loyal to him.

Let me give a specific example:

We teach that there are various “spirits” a person can decide to follow. I met a man on my mission who was very much “in tune with spirits”. Strictly speaking, he was a very “spiritual” man. He also was one of the scariest, most evil people I have ever met in my life.

Likewise, one can feel “The Spirit” and not act on it – not make any changes whatsoever in practical matters. “Faith” also is interpreted by some (quite a few, actually) as something you feel, divorced completely from actions. “Conversion”, otoh, requires a change of action. Therefore, “spirituality” may connote action to some, but it only denotes feeling – being in touch with some spirit.

Finally, “righteous” means “being right” – in this case, being right with God. It is the actual fulfillment of “good spirituality” – proper spirituality in action. The Beatitudes don’t say, “Blessed are the spiritual;” they say, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.” There is a lesson in that distinction, imo.

My wife once had a dream where she was on a bus that took her and the other passengers to the bottom of a great mountain. Once there, they had to put their hiking boots on and continue the journey up the mountain by foot. The church can only take us so far before be must walk on our own two feet by faith to reach our destination.

“Spirituality” is not recorded in our canon anywhere. A person is described as **being** spiritual (someone “is spiritual” or people “are spiritual”) only twice in the entire canon – both instances by Paul.

I find that fascinating.

Anyone who claims that their spirituality exists in a vacuum, apart from any other theological systems, is deluding themselves. Our perception of God is based on what we see around us. Even those who claim otherworldly revelation seem to acknowledge that God tended to speak to them according to their own language (Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Moses), and in a way they could understand, meaning God works through the constructs a person has built up over their lives. Therefore I say find your spirituality through your religion, whatever it may be, and if it’s not working for you, try a different one.

Religion usually refers more precisely to well established institutions.

Also, I don’t believe we were created to be saved individually in isolation, so communal religion is a no-brainer to me. (“Where two or three are gathered in my name . . .”) I believe that anyone who gathers with others to worship believes that, as well.

Science is the tool to explore nature. Religion is the tool to explore the spiritual. That’s why talking spiritual with a science crowd results in all kinds of arguments about what can be proven or not. Science is not the tool. Religion is the tool for the job.

When someone says they are spiritual and not religious, I think they don’t understand religion. I don’t blame them. There are lots of bad examples of religion to give someone the conclusion that organized religion is all bad. It’s not. It works really great for a lot of people, at whatever level those people are at in their faith. Religion is the practice of spirituality.

Tobias Wolff: “Perhaps the greatest problem with this word is the line it seems to imply between spirit and flesh…” This is not a problem for Mormons, they understand and accept the interface of spirit and flesh and they understand some of the great questions like; where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. But, one of the big weaknesses is that many only know these answers intellectually, they haven’t experienced gnosis or “knowing” them spiritually.

Another great spiritual strength is revelation.

McConkie:
“As a people, we are in the habit of saying that we believe in latter-day revelation. We announce that the heavens have been opened, that God has spoken in our day, that angels have ministered to men, that there have been visions and revelations, and that no gift possessed by the ancients has been withheld.

But usually, when we talk in this way, we are thinking of the examples of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or Spencer W. Kimball. We are thinking of apostles and prophets. We are thinking of them and of the Church itself operating on the principle of revelation.

But revelation is not restricted to the prophet of God on earth. The visions of eternity are not reserved for General Authorities. Revelation is something that should be received by every individual. For the Lord said in D&C 1:35 “… I am no respecter of persons …” and every soul is just as precious to him as the souls of those who are called to positions of leadership. Because he operates on principles of eternal, universal law, any individual who obeys the law that entitles him to get revelation can know exactly what President Kimball knows, can speak with angels just as well as Joseph Smith spoke with them, and can be in tune with all things spiritual.

Now I say that we are entitled to revelation. Every member of the Church is entitled to get revelation from the Holy Ghost; he is entitled to have angels visit; he is entitled to view the visions of eternity; and he is entitled to see God the same way that any prophet in reality has seen him.”

When it comes to personal revelation of this magnitude, many (probably most?) do not actually believe it exists.

Following a religion solely because it is the family tradition generally yield a religious person from a practice standpoint, but not necessarily a spiritual one.