I have been fascinated for years at the substitutes for the Spirit that I see all around me – in the Christian world, but, unfortunately, also sometimes in members of the Church. It’s easy to confuse manifestations of the Spirit with emotional manipulation – and it’s easy to get cynical when you observe blatant emotional manipulation. It’s also easy to dismiss emotional presentation of doctrine and forget that some concepts and doctrines simply are emotional in nature.

Finally, it’s easy to forget that emotional manipulation often is the only thing people know, and sometimes those who we see as “orchestrating” it also don’t know any better. Often, their intentions are sincere, even if their methods are flawed. At least it’s worth considering, since it probably applies to each of us more often than we realize.

Any situation can lead to the first, and I am appalled by what I see in some denominations, but denying the power and legitimacy of the spirit almost invariably leads to the latter. Remember, perhaps the most stinging criticism of an entire people in the Book of Mormon is, “They were past feeling.”

I think there is an inherent problem with trying to separate out spiritual experience from emotions because they are invariably manifest through our body. I will in discussing the need to avoid excessive emotionalism it would be wise to consider what emotional manifestations we might be talking about. Tears are not always from the spirit but neither, it seems to me, is the spirit never accompnaied with tears. I think the same could be said for a whole of other emotions. Maybe something worth considering is emotional/spiritual responses that are located in a context. I mean is there a difference to tears (this seems a common problem and easily recognisable so i’ll use it as my example) in response to a testimony about a particularly challenging moment in their life, or tears in response to a particular scripture when reading alone or praying alone.

So maybe emotion is part of ‘the thing’, but perhaps we can be wiser about discerning how the body and spirit interact.

I think the main difference is between being generally moved by the Spirit and mistaking cheap sentiment for a spiritual experience. Amen. You did good in citing Nibley as well. I like the way you and Jared posted right next to each other.

Thomas Parkin’s post is so good I almost did not respond to the comments, as it makes a nice conclusion.

In my experience the Lord will respond and we will obtain answers to our earnest prayers and in the process learn to understand the dealings of the Lord.

#2 John–My experience has been that in answering some of our prayers the Lord gives us information/intelligence. Many times there is no emotion whatsoever. The experience might be seconds in duration. The idea of burning and such is the exception, in my experience.

Hugh Nibley was an especially harsh critic of this technique, which he dismissed as “kitsch”.

Have you found effective ways to teach others the difference between the two?