- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Someone mentioned on the NOM website that someone might be re-converted. I thought that was an interesting thought and I wanted to explore that for a moment with you. Do you really think that would/could happen? All of us have different issues that led us to where we are right now and on this board. Do you think that you could be a TBM again?
Part of me would really want that because there was something nice about it, about just following the leader. But then there is the other side of me that is kind of annoyed at just following when there are things that really bother me now and I would never want to just follow blindly again.
And then there is this nagging thought that “what if they (mormons) are right? What if it is the correct path to eternity and even if I don’t like it I will end up living it?
One of my YW is off to college now and she is having her own faith crisis. I love her dearly and I don’t feel it my place to shake up her world with any of the knowledge that I have found. So it was really difficult to try and keep things un-biased about some of her questions. At one point I told her that she has to
WANTa testimony in order to have one (which I do believe). So did we choosenot to have one? I prefer not to think of it is having a testimony, or not having a testimony (at all). I think our “testimony” is a word to describe our personal collection of “truths.” So unless you become a complete nihilist, you still have a “testimony.” It doesn’t go away, it just changes. Can you become a TBM again? Perhaps, but you can’t undo your life experience and what you have learned. If you see TBM = Orthodox, then yes. If you see TBM = How you used to be be orthodox, then no.
I would compare to age and wisdom. Can a middle-aged, experienced adult become a child again? No, not outside of a traumatic brain injury perhaps. But an experienced adult could cultivate a child-like state of innocence. They would still be an adult with all their life experience PLUS a new child-like humility and innocence.
Does that make sense?
Well put Brian. We often say you can’t go back, in life you must move forward. I feel like I am one example of someone who passed through the challenges of a full-on faith crisis. I remember the days when I thought atheism probably described me as well as anything. Today I am a full active “believing” Mormon, and this is where I want to be. Do I see everything the same way that I used to? Of course not. Am I comfortable with my position and level of belief in the church? I am — and I have to be, I can be nothing other than me. It just doesn’t work. I define myself as “converted.” I am what I am. I enjoy the theological expanses of Mormonism, I find wonder and great value there. I am constantly entertained, amazed, and sometimes flabbergasted by what I see other members do — and I drink it all in. I believe whole-heartedly that this earth life is a time to experience and learn everything that we possibly can, and I appreciate all the lessons I hear in church that reinforces that idea for me. Also that Love is central to the gospel, there is so much power in that. But I also agree with what I think Brian stabbed at. I think people are capable in growing in almost any direction imaginable.
Butters wrote:Someone mentioned on the NOM website that someone might be re-converted. I thought that was an interesting thought and I wanted to explore that for a moment with you. Do you really think that would/could happen? All of us have different issues that led us to where we are right now and on this board.
Do you think that you could be a TBM again?…there is this nagging thought that “what if they (mormons) are right?…One of my YW is off to college now and she is having her own faith crisis… I told her that she has toWANTa testimony in order to have one (which I do believe). So did wechoosenot to have one? I really wanted to believe in the Church and tried to re-convert to being a TBM by reading scriptures, praying, etc. but this just made me doubt some of the Church’s claims even more than I did before. I was able to rationalize and shrug off some problems and put a few doubts on the shelf for over 10 years but I just kept running into more questions and problems the more I thought about what the Church was really saying. Some of the apologetic answers to the toughest questions didn’t really help much either. Now I’ve basically given up on the idea of ever believing in the Church again the same way I did before.
To be honest, I wouldn’t really want to go back to being a TBM even if I could at this point because I think having so much faith in men and the written word is a fundamentally flawed idea that creates more problems than it solves if you are paying close attention to everything they say. Basically, if everything worked exactly the way the Church claims then I would expect to see something very different than what we see, not necessarily perfection but certainly not nearly as many inconsistencies between what the “revelations” say and what looks like the most likely explanation based on the evidence we have so far.
For me, it all depends on how you define “TBM” – like Brian and Orson said. As far as the actual question in the title goes, I would answer with a strong and adamant, “Yes” – but, as Brian said, not re-convert to the same situation as the initial conversion. I might not be a “traditional believing Mormon” in many ways – but I am in many other ways. I might not be an orthodox Mormon in many ways, but I am in many other ways – and I certainly am an orthoprax Mormon in many ways. I might be heretical in some ways, but I am right-down-the-line mainstream in some others. I might not be a “traditional believing Mormon” in the way that most define TBM, but I am a “true believing Mormon” the way I define TBM.
I also would add that “conversion” means nothing more than “change” at its core – so “convert” really means nothing more than “repent” at the most basic level. Therefore, I would say “converting” is a process made up of reconversion moments, not an event – meaning we are supposed to being “converting” throughout our lives. Anyone who does not “re-convert” in some way literally stagnates.
So, to summarize, proper conversion (and re-conversion) isn’t “returning” to anything; it’s progressing toward something.
Butters wrote:…Do you think that you could be a TBM again?…
No.
Brian Johnston wrote:I prefer not to think of it is having a testimony, or not having a testimony (at all). I think our “testimony” is a word to describe our personal collection of “truths.” So unless you become a complete nihilist, you still have a “testimony.” It doesn’t go away, it just changes.
Does that make sense?
Absolutely it does.
My heart at times wants to go back but my brain will not let me. I have been unable to put aside all logic and reason and just believe. I find no way around it. I have been unable to reconcile the empirical evidence against belief with the anecdotal evidence for belief in the church. Do I just choose to believe regardless of the evidence that tells me it is most likely made up. If someone can go back after learning as much as I have and believe it again in totality I guess that would be somewhat of a miracle. I wish I had a miracle. Cadence wrote:I have been unable to put aside all logic and reason and just believe.
Then don’t. You’re not meant to.
Cadence wrote:Do I just choose to believe regardless of the evidence that tells me it is most likely made up.
No. Not at all. …you choose to believe
in harmonywith all the evidence that indicates some parts are most likely the false interpretations of fallible humans. Cadence wrote:If someone can go back after learning as much as I have and believe it again in . . . [any part] . . . I guess that would be somewhat of a miracle.
I agree wholeheartedly. Even any little part.
I believe in miracles.
I believe that I have been re-converted, but as to being a TBM, well probably not, since I have different interpretations of some things. I was away for years (although I never got far in the first place), and felt I should return. I have experienced good and bad – goes without saying… Very good thoughts. Thanks for them. I think that I am still trying to figure out what is “normal” for me and wondered if I should pursue the norm that I once had.
I know that a lot of people experienced anger and such when they discovered all of this. I don’t feel anger, I don’t really feel anything. Did anyone else do that? I just don’t care. Maybe I will later.
Great question, Butters. I appreciate everyone’s insights; your positions are so inspiring! I admit I felt a bit of loss when I recently re-read something I wrote about five years ago:
“While the Book of Mormon is not exactly the precise historical record many readers assume it to be, neither is it a work of fiction. It is filled with 19th century elements, but also contains a minority of intriguing details that seem ancient. If we presuppose an ancient document, we can easily explain all 19th century details as divine truth being filtered through Joseph’s worldview. Lacking an ancient document, the minority of ancient features becomes difficult to explain. I want to expand somewhat on the difference between the Book of Mormon being fundamentally different than most think, and being completely fictional. In the first instance, the content of the golden plates would have been filtered through Joseph Smith’s world view in a way that maximized its salvific effectiveness. In the second, there would have been no gold plates. The first option seems to fit with what we know about human nature, revelation, historical process, and common sense. For example, 2 Ne 10:3 and 25:19 equate Messiah with Christ. In a Semitic language, this just doesn’t make any sense, as they both mean “Anointed,” one in Hebrew, one in Greek. Yet “Jesus Christ” is the only thing that the 19th century readership of the Book of Mormon would have understood. It is not as if “and the name of (whatever their name for him was; I was going to say Quetsaqoatl until Mark spoke) will be Joshua Messiah” would have had the same impact. In Joseph’s day, it was hard enough to get the people to accept new ideas within the framework of dispensationalist Christianity. If he were to overthrow the whole schema in the interest of historical “accuracy,” people would have never gotten past it. In general, it makes sense that Joseph would have “improved” the Bible to make things clearer and conform to his revealed theology. This also conforms to how Biblical scribes and editors have worked in the past, as well of the historical process of theology and historiography becoming more refined and congruent over time. But the big thing is that it makes sense for God to reveal truth in the way that will lead the maximum number of His children to salvation. So as radical and possibly disturbing as the first option is, it makes sense.
The other option not only doesn’t make sense or conform to human nature, it would be ineffective. So if there weren’t any golden plates or Nephites, what would be the point? Why wouldn’t God use a different avenue to restore His Church? It crosses the line for me to imagine God talking to an angel and saying, “Here, you pretend to be Moroni, and make up an 1000 year history of your people, and plant some plates,” or even more extreme, that there was no angel or plates, but only Joseph’s mental derangement used for the salvation of mankind. Where would this minimalist argument stop? Does everything go but the Atonement? Even that? This process easily is reduced to absurdity.”
That stage of my faith put me in a nice middle-ground position. I had the freedom to think about how the gold plates differed from the Book of Mormon, or how reincarnation fit into progression to godhood, but I accepted the basic framework of LDS cosmology. I still fit into the mainstream of LDS thinking, even if I floated along the banks of that stream. But I don’t have that any more. I can’t conceptualize of a way I would regain it; I have moved beyond that conceptualization.
I think Brian’s return to childhood analogy was spot-on. We might feel a bit of nostalgia about the simplicity and ease of certain aspects of childhood, but we would not really want to return to it.
To give my input to your question Butters, I am open to continuing spiritual experiences; I seek them. I would love to have a confirmation that the Atonement has basis in reality. I would accept that gladly. At the same time, I am deeply skeptical of the awkward literalism the TBM understanding of reality demands. Nostalgia aside, I am really happy where I am spiritually. I love the freedom and clarity that comes from carving my own beliefs and decisions out of the bedrock of reality, with the chisel of critical thinking. I love being able to relate to a wide spectrum of worldviews. The “critical distance” and a portion of outside perspective gives me hope for improvement in the LDS community, which I love.
So no, I don’t think we can go back to an earlier stage of faith, but I think the later stages transcend the earlier, bringing benefits that do not need to carry painful costs.
Enoch, that was a fabulous summation. I think part of me wants the ease of the belief as it was, but I need to just accept it and move on with what I have and with what I will have. I believe that I am at a better spot than I was a year ago. I have a peace that I didn’t have when I was TBM. This IS better.
Butters wrote:
I believe that I am at a better spot than I was a year ago. I have a peace that I didn’t have when I was TBM. This IS better.Yes, and that is a VERY difficult concept for TBM’s to grasp. Especially loving TBM family members. You and I are okay. We are not broken. We’re just different.
Not just different Cwald, BETTER. 
I do think our position is better overall, more healthy, less vulnerable, more effective in meeting the challenges of life. At the same time, I have a deep respect and empathy for the need for simpler faith, such as many of our loved ones manifest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.