my guest post at wheatandtares.org

[Anonymous]

http://www.wheatandtares.org/12600/faith-doubt/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.wheatandtares.org/12600/faith-doubt/

Faith & Doubt

By: Guest

August 28, 2013

This is the first guest post from Bill Reel. He is the operator of Mormon Discussion Podcast. He has served as a Bishop in the Church and is currently the Ward Mission Leader in his ward. His podcast seeks to help fellow Latter-Day Saints work through their doubts, leading with faith. The podcast is found at http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com . You can reach Bro. Reel by email at reelmormon@gmail.com

Would love feedback

[Anonymous]

Hi Bill,

First I want you to know that I liked much of what you said. It is evident that you have traveled this road and that you really care.

I do have some critical feedback as well.

Quote:

One in crisis doesn’t need you to prove to them Evolution is wrong…

When we consider that David O. McKay while prophet expressed that he believed evolution

I’m not sure that evolution is a good example here. Are we implying that orthodox members believe evolution to be false but that we should also be tolerant and “big tent” enough to allow those that believe in evolution to fellowship with us? I hate the idea that it might be normal in my church to believe in a young earth and to deny all scientific evidence to the contrary. I don’t actually believe that this is the norm. I suspect that if most Mormons were asked the age of the earth they would say millions of years – this is why I object to the implication that to believe in evolution is unorthodox. I suppose that some of your readers may think that it is their duty as Mormons to not believe in evolution – I think that is very sad.

This next point is rather personal and I don’t know that I would share it if I didn’t believe you could be trusted with it.

Quote:

The only options left are (1) to move forward, (2) stay in crisis, or (3) exchange one unrealistic paradigm for another….

The quick decision regardless of whether you stay or go, almost never provides the experience that allows you to truly move forward. Rather, those who make a quick decision, as pointed out in the section above, trade one bad paradigm for another, one that is just as flawed. Hanging in there and testing all things with an open mind and open heart is the only way to move forward, regardless whether you end up as a believing Latter-day Saint or something entirely different….

While that is one possible conclusion, the quick decision you make rarely reflects your framework being realistic. In other words, regardless of your end conclusion, your assumptions and expectations have a lot of changing to do and any decision that doesn’t require changes in your foundation will still be faulty….

I wish to object to the characterizations of paradigms as unrealistic, bad, flawed, and faulty. My personal assumptive reality collapse was less about the church than it was about what I had assumed about my relationship to my HF. (I had assumed a contractual relationship with certain promised blessings for compliance). I remember taking a class on grief, the assumptive world collapse, and rebuilding a new assumptive reality. I remember thinking – why must we rely upon assumptions ? Why don’t we build upon reality instead? My personal answer was that the journey for personal meaning doesn’t correlate very well with “reality.”

Had I trusted you less I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it because I’m not so sure that most of your audience would understand the concept that most paradigms are unrealistic, bad, flawed, and faulty in the sense that they are not representations of reality. Some paradigms are easier to disprove than others, some paradigms are more useful than others, but I believe that flaws are inherent in the assumptive world. This brings me to the next quotation with which I very much agree.

Quote:

Cognitive Dissonance. It is that tug we spoke of in point 1. It tells your brain that an immediate decision must be made to rid yourself of this anguish; that you must make up your mind quickly and that you should lean towards the decision that will likely provide the least amount of cognitive dissonance in the future.

I did definitely feel that in rebuilding my assumptive reality I should do so in a way that was least likely to bring about another crash. It was as though my subconscious self was saying, “Based upon what we now understand of the world and the experiences we are likely to have in the future- what assumptions would be least likely to be proven untrue by future experiences?” I considered it akin to earthquake testing – “will my new assumptions withstand future shocks”. It was not so important that these new assumptions be true as it is that they be difficult or impossible to be proven untrue. (For the sake of this discussion I use “proven untrue” to mean proven untrue within my own mind)

I understand why X-Mormons might trend towards Atheism-Agnosticism because the chance of being proven wrong seems so remote. This is why I don’t like the characterizations of this paradigm to be unrealistic, bad, flawed, and faulty. It is fairly effective in doing its job (IOW preventing a future assumptive world collapse) and is at least as based on “reality” and “realism” as any other paradigm.

I respect you and your work. It is not an easy thing to stick your neck out there like you are doing and I hope that my critical feedback doesn’t dissuade you in the least from continuing to “fight the good fight”.

Your friend,

Roy

[Anonymous]

Not at all. I appreciate your feedback and would like to talk more about this at length. I would like to explain more fully what I mean, better understand your criticism in the face of your better understanding my point and see if it is my view that needs tweaked. You open to a phone call? I might be able to call tonight or you can call me. email me which way is better and I will follow up

Thanks

Bill

[Anonymous]

DBM, I’m looking forward to more guest posts from you. I know there were negative comments in some of the exMo boards, but what I found encouraging is that your post was acceptable by pretty much all TBMs who might not have otherwise given these ideas much thought and can (possibly as a result) quit driving people out of the church for expressing a modicum of authenticity. When we’ve lost our tolerance for anything other than the party line, there is no hope for us to either grow or stay alive as a church.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Not at all. I appreciate your feedback and would like to talk more about this at length. I would like to explain more fully what I mean, better understand your criticism in the face of your better understanding my point and see if it is my view that needs tweaked. You open to a phone call? I might be able to call tonight or you can call me. email me which way is better and I will follow up

Thanks

Bill

Sorry for the delay Bill. I don’t always have access to a computer but I will contact you. I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now. If I saw this post in the Ensign, I would be overjoyed. I was likewise thrilled by the talk “Help Thou my Unbelief.” Why should I hold your post to a different standard? I’ve concluded that I shouldn’t. You introduced some really fantastic concepts like that a FC can be a healthy part of a normal evolution of faith.

I guess my qualm in a nutshell is as follows: Your post seems to indicate that there is an objective universal truth and that foundations not built upon this truth are on shakey ground.

Upon reflection, I believe that this concept is so central to LDS culture and theology that you would lose most of your audience if you didn’t follow it.

Thanks for all that you do!

P.S. Saw Brad Wilcox’s talk “His Grace is Sufficient” in the most recent Ensign and I thought of you.

[Anonymous]

Bill, since you’re a Ward Mission Leader, have you shared with any of the missionaries about your beliefs after having your faith crisis? If you have, how have they reacted?

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

DBM, I’m looking forward to more guest posts from you. I know there were negative comments in some of the exMo boards, but what I found encouraging is that your post was acceptable by pretty much all TBMs who might not have otherwise given these ideas much thought and can (possibly as a result) quit driving people out of the church for expressing a modicum of authenticity. When we’ve lost our tolerance for anything other than the party line, there is no hope for us to either grow or stay alive as a church.

What do you want me to write about? What points need to be made clearer? what topics would you like me to explain my view? I am open to contributing if the powers that be want it.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

Not at all. I appreciate your feedback and would like to talk more about this at length. I would like to explain more fully what I mean, better understand your criticism in the face of your better understanding my point and see if it is my view that needs tweaked. You open to a phone call? I might be able to call tonight or you can call me. email me which way is better and I will follow up

Thanks

Bill

Sorry for the delay Bill. I don’t always have access to a computer but I will contact you. I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now. If I saw this post in the Ensign, I would be overjoyed. I was likewise thrilled by the talk “Help Thou my Unbelief.” Why should I hold your post to a different standard? I’ve concluded that I shouldn’t. You introduced some really fantastic concepts like that a FC can be a healthy part of a normal evolution of faith.

I guess my qualm in a nutshell is as follows: Your post seems to indicate that there is an objective universal truth and that foundations not built upon this truth are on shakey ground.

Upon reflection, I believe that this concept is so central to LDS culture and theology that you would lose most of your audience if you didn’t follow it.

Thanks for all that you do!

P.S. Saw Brad Wilcox’s talk “His Grace is Sufficient” in the most recent Ensign and I thought of you.

I love Bro. Wilcox. His talk has now been in the ensign, the new era, and is the number one talk on BYU speeches. His talks rings true and the Brethren have picked up on it. elder Uchtdorf talked about a toddler walking in his talk “four titles” and if you compare that to Bro. Wilcox’s piano analogy you will see they are hitting on the same truth. He is the impetus for my moving into a nuanced world. Once I saw that his view of Grace rang true and contradicted what other “authorities” taught or stated, it opened me to begin considering all my assumptions and expectations and to begin enjoying stripping away culture, opinion, policy, and nonsense and to search for the diamonds of truth on each issue. Also I loved talking to you by phone tonight. In my ward there is maybe 1 or 2 people who can handle a deep conversation like and no-one to discuss deep issues of history or doctrine. It makes for a lonely road when you have no-one sharing the same journey and thinking about the same things. I really appreciated your insights and wish you lived a block away, as we could engage in some great conversations like that regularly. God bless you.

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Bill, since you’re a Ward Mission Leader, have you shared with any of the missionaries about your beliefs after having your faith crisis? If you have, how have they reacted?

a little bit. Only about four members of my Ward know about my podcast, although my friend and current Bishop hints at it a lot as he loves it. If I feel that a missionary can handle me discussing it, I will briefly describe what I am doing. I try to be careful as throwing the depth of what I do onto a 19 year old missionary is generally not helpful and can be detrimental. I want more people who need the podcast to know about it but I also don’t want to raise issues for those who are going happily along unaware of them. If that makes sense?

So it is slow. I talk openly in Sunday School and Priesthood if I strongly disagree with something being taught and I have a church reference to back up my view. But I do so softly, kindly, and tactfully. As Bishop I once taught a lesson that included the statement that Lying was not always wrong (I was demonstrating that there are exceptions to rules and black and white thinking only works so far) and a sister got up and walked out and said later, “How in the world could her bishop teach that lying was ok”?

If you understand Fowlers Stages of Faith, Those in stage 4 feel a need to pull stage 3’s into their realm. I still feel that desire. But one key to knowing you have a foot firmly in stage 5 is that you feel no impetus to force people to step out of the point at which they are at.

So I say things and plant seeds when it feels right and I shut up when it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

OK. That makes sense.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Also I loved talking to you by phone tonight. In my ward there is maybe 1 or 2 people who can handle a deep conversation like and no-one to discuss deep issues of history or doctrine. It makes for a lonely road when you have no-one sharing the same journey and thinking about the same things. I really appreciated your insights and wish you lived a block away, as we could engage in some great conversations like that regularly. God bless you.

I really enjoyed our conversation as well. I think if there was someone like you that could listen and understand me at church I might look forward to my meetings again. It can be extra isolating to be alone in the crowd of your “brothers and sisters.” I hope that posts like yours are successful in widening the tent for people like us who are willing to lead with belief and faith – even after weve been disapointed by misplaced certainty.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon, I loved your post and would love to see some more.

[Author]

Posts