Richard Bushman’s Description and help for Faith Crisis

[Anonymous]

your thoughts on the article below

http://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

Increasingly teachers and church leaders at all levels are approached by Latter-day Saints who have lost confidence in Joseph Smith and the basic miraculous events of church history. They doubt the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, many of Joseph’s revelations, and much besides. They fall into doubt after going on the Internet and finding shocking information about Joseph Smith based on documents and facts they had never heard before. A surprising number had not known about Joseph Smith’s plural wives. They are set back by differences in the various accounts of the First Vision. They find that Egyptologists do not translate the Abraham manuscripts the way Joseph Smith did, making it appear that the Book of Abraham was a fabrication. When they come across this information in a critical book or read it on one of the innumerable critical Internet sites, they feel as if they had been introduced to a Joseph Smith and a Church history they had never known before. They undergo an experience like viewing the famous picture of a beautiful woman who in a blink of an eye turns into an old hag. Everything changes. What are they to believe?

Often church leaders, parents, and friends, do not understand the force of this alternate view. Not knowing how to respond, they react defensively. They are inclined to dismiss all the evidence as anti-Mormon or of the devil. Stop reading these things if they upset you so much, the inquirer is told. Or go back to the familiar formula: scriptures, prayer, church attendance.

The troubled person may have been doing all of these things sincerely, perhaps even desperately. He or she feels the world is falling apart. Everything these inquirers put their trust in starts to crumble. They want guidance more than ever in their lives, but they don’t seem to get it. The facts that have been presented to them challenge almost everything they believe. People affected in this way may indeed stop praying; they don’t trust the old methods because they feel betrayed by the old system. Frequently they are furious. On their missions they fervently taught people about Joseph Smith without knowing any of these negative facts. Were they taken advantage of? Was the Church trying to fool them for its own purposes?

These are deeply disturbing questions. They shake up everything. Should I stay in the Church? Should I tell my family? Should I just shut up and try to get along? Who can help me?

At this point, these questioners go off in various directions. Some give up on the Church entirely. They find another religion or, more likely these days, abandon religion altogether. Without their familiar Mormon God, they are not sure there is any God at all. They become atheist or agnostic. Some feel the restrictions they grew up with no longer apply. The strength has been drained out of tithing, the Word of Wisdom, and chastity. They partly welcome the new freedom of their agnostic condition. Now they can do anything they please without fear of breaking the old Mormon rules. The results may not be happy for them or their families.

Others piece together a morality and a spiritual attitude that stops them from declining morally, but they are not in an easy place. When they go to church, , they are not comfortable. Sunday School classes and Sacrament meeting talks about Joseph Smith and the early church no longer ring true. How can these people believe these “fairy tales,” the inquirers ask. Those who have absorbed doses of negative material live in two minds: their old church mind which now seems naive and credulous, and their new enlightened mind with its forbidden knowledge learned on the Internet and from critical books.

A friend who is in this position described the mindset of the disillusioned member this way:

“Due to the process of learning, which they have gone through, these [two-minded] LDS often no longer accept the church as the only true one (with the only true priesthood authority and the only valid sacred ordinances), but they see it as a Christian church, in which good, inspired programs are found as well as failure and error. They no longer consider inspiration, spiritual and physical healing, personal and global revelation limited to the LDS church. In this context, these saints may attend other churches, too, where they might have spiritual experiences as well. They interpret their old spiritual experiences differently, understanding them as testimonies from God for them personally, as a result of their search and efforts, but these testimonies don’t necessarily have to be seen as a confirmation that the LDS church is the only true one.

“Since the social relationships between them and other ward (or stake) members suffer (avoidance, silence, even mobbing) because of their status as heretics, which is usually known via gossip, and since the extent of active involvement and range of possible callings are reduced because of their nonconformity in various areas, there is a risk that they end up leaving the church after all, because they are simply ignored by the majority of the other members.”

He then offers a recommendation:

“It is necessary that the church not only shows more support and openness to these ‘apostates’ but also teaches and advises all members, bishops, stake presidents etc., who usually don’t know how to deal with such a situation in terms of organizational and ecclesiastical questions and – out of insecurity – fail to treat the critical member with the necessary love and respect that even a normal stranger would receive.”

Those are the words of someone who has lost belief in many of the fundamentals and is working out a new relationship to the Church. Other shaken individuals recover their belief in the basic principles and events but are never quite the same as before. Their knowledge, although no longer toxic, gives them a new perspective. They tend to be more philosophic and less dogmatic about all the stories they once enjoyed. Here are some of the characteristics of people who have passed through this ordeal but managed to revive most of their old beliefs.

1. They often say they learned the Prophet was human. They don’t expect him to be a model of perfect deportment as they once thought. He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or scolded his associates, or even have made business errors. They see his virtues and believe in his revelations but don’t expect perfection.

2. They also don’t believe he was led by revelation in every detail. They see him as learning gradually to be a prophet and having to feel his way at times like most Church members. In between the revelations, he was left to himself to work out the methods of complying with the Lord’s commandments. Sometimes he had to experiment until he found the right way.

3. These newly revived Latter-day Saints also develop a more philosophical attitude toward history. They come to see (like professional historians) that facts can have many interpretations. Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context along side other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.

4. Revived Latter-day Saints focus on the good things they derive from their faith–the community of believers, the comforts of the Holy Spirit, the orientation toward the large questions of life, contact with God, moral discipline, and many others. They don’t want to abandon these good things. Starting from that point of desired belief, they are willing to give Joseph Smith and the doctrine a favorable hearing. They may not be absolutely certain about every item, but they are inclined to see the good and the true in the Church.

At the heart of this turmoil is the question of trust. Disillusioned Latter-day Saints feel their trust has been betrayed. They don’t know whom to trust. They don’t dare trust the old feelings that once were so powerful, nor do they trust church leaders. They can only trust the new knowledge they have acquired. Those who come back to the Church are inclined to trust their old feelings. Their confidence in the good things they knew before is at least partially restored. But they sort out the goodness that seems still vital from the parts that now seem no longer tenable. Knowledge not only has given them a choice, it has compelled them to choose. They have to decide what they really believe. In the end, many are more stable and convinced than before. They feel better prepared to confront criticism openly, confident they can withstand it.

– – – –

The members of the seminar on “Joseph Smith and His Critics,” a group of Religious Education and CES faculty who met at BYU for six weeks in the summer of 2008, are among those who have known Latter-day Saints in this state of confusion and doubt. We have had many opportunities to talk to questioners about their problems and admit that we have often fallen short in our answers. We came together in hopes of learning to do better. Besides gathering information on a series of specific issues, we have discussed how best to deal with questioning Saints. What way of speaking is most likely to win their trust and convince them we have their best interests at heart?

We began by agreeing that criticisms of Joseph Smith should not be dismissed as foolish or purely evil. The negative attacks that disturb first-time readers are usually based on facts, not merely prejudiced fabrications. To play down the force of the criticism, we believe, only convinces the seekers that we do not understand. We appear to be sweeping trouble under the rug. They may have been devastated by a criticism; we must show that we understand why. Consequently, the seminar took as its first principle to state the negative argument as fully and accurately as we can. We try not to minimize the difficulty or prejudice the case against the critic. In no other way can we persuade the doubters that we understand the problem.

Secondly, we try to avoid dogmatic answers. Rather than replace the dogmatic negative attacks of the critics with our own dogmatic answers, we attempt to show that a more positive interpretation is possible. Critics often claim that Joseph’s sins were so egregious as to utterly disqualify him as a prophet. We can understand their viewpoint, but we think there is another side to the story. Rather than destroy the critics, we want to loosen their grip. In the long run, we believe this approach will persuade questioners more effectively than claims to certainty where none is possible. We believe in stating our own strong convictions about the church as a whole, but we do not to pretend to perfect knowledge about complex historical questions.

We know that airing criticisms troubles many Latter-day Saints. Like most Church teachers, the members of the seminar do not want to draw attention to questions that will only unsettle faithful members. But we also feel that silence is not the answer. The absence of instruction troubles questioners more than anything. They feel they have been betrayed because they came through their Church classes ignorant of the devastating information now a few clicks away on the internet. The gaps in their education leave them disillusioned and angry.

To counteract this lack of preparation, the seminar members have taken as our motto the scripture that begins: “As all have not faith, teach one another” (D&C 88:118). We are encouraged by the scriptural recognition that not all have faith, and by the appealing remedy, “teach one another.” For many questioners, loneliness is the heart of the problems. No one seems to understand. We are enjoined by this scripture to find these seekers and bring them into a fellowship of inquiry. We hope that our papers will help Church teachers create safe havens where questions may be asked and answers explored–where we can teach one another.

[Anonymous]

I think the first half…before his recommendations…are mostly accurate and reflect my own circumstance.

I think this feller understands the tenuous situation the church is in…And I hope leadership is listening.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I think the first half…before his recommendations…are mostly accurate and reflect my own circumstance.

I think this feller understands the tenuous situation the church is in…And I hope leadership is listening.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I know that Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens and others have met with Top church Leadership to discuss different approaches and to share thoughts openly.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree completely with Bushman’s approach. The answer is not to deny the facts, but rather, to realize that the church and particularly the gospel have value because they are the product of a very human process. There is so much good and right in the teachings — I have tried to find them elsewhere, and I have tried to live without them, but we are not programmed to do it alone. The god within us, the millions of years of evolutionary design — the result of the divine process of nature — demands that we have a community of believers in shared myths and stories. We cannot reverse this programming in one or two generations, and when we leave the community thinking we are smarter than that, our god within, the one that yearns for the community of saints, suffers and often falls silent.

We need each other. We need the community of saints. We need our stories and myths to edify our souls.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“Due to the process of learning, which they have gone through, these [two-minded] LDS often no longer accept the church as the only true one (with the only true priesthood authority and the only valid sacred ordinances), but they see it as a Christian church, in which good, inspired programs are found as well as failure and error. They no longer consider inspiration, spiritual and physical healing, personal and global revelation limited to the LDS church. In this context, these saints may attend other churches, too, where they might have spiritual experiences as well. They interpret their old spiritual experiences differently, understanding them as testimonies from God for them personally, as a result of their search and efforts, but these testimonies don’t necessarily have to be seen as a confirmation that the LDS church is the only true one.

“Since the social relationships between them and other ward (or stake) members suffer (avoidance, silence, even mobbing) because of their status as heretics, which is usually known via gossip, and since the extent of active involvement and range of possible callings are reduced because of their nonconformity in various areas, there is a risk that they end up leaving the church after all, because they are simply ignored by the majority of the other members.”

Hmmm. This describes me exactly. Maybe I was the guy who got interviewed?

[Anonymous]

Hmm…

I’m moving from a literalist view of mormonism (only true and living, all truth, only ultimate path to god in this life or the next) towards a non-literal view. One of many vehicles along the path back to God. The one that suits me, but not the one that suits all. The one that helps me know the master, use my time well and ‘be excellent to each other.’ But not the one for all.

My concern is that if I let go of the whole literal perspective then commandments become non-literal too. I wonder where that takes me…

DB, I know you went through a faith crisis and have now resolved a lot of that. Do you take D&C 1:30 literally? Do you consider all other churches to be “wrong” and an “abomination.”

Given you have a public profile, feel free to skip that question if you’d prefer.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the blog, it was outstanding DB, thanks for finding and sharing.

The post could have been written for me.

I’m able to come to terms with imperfections. I’m just not sure I can have full confidence in my feelings any more, nor in some of the dogmatic, absolutist claims of the church.

I’m not sure how to move out of feeling so unresolved…

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Hmm…

I’m moving from a literalist view of mormonism (only true and living, all truth, only ultimate path to god in this life or the next) towards a non-literal view. One of many vehicles along the path back to God. The one that suits me, but not the one that suits all. The one that helps me know the master, use my time well and ‘be excellent to each other.’ But not the one for all.

My concern is that if I let go of the whole literal perspective then commandments become non-literal too. I wonder where that takes me…

DB, I know you went through a faith crisis and have now resolved a lot of that. Do you take D&C 1:30 literally? Do you consider all other churches to be “wrong” and an “abomination.”

Given you have a public profile, feel free to skip that question if you’d prefer.

Quote:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

First off, I am now an open book. I want to help

I believe that God loves all his children, that he is working to bring all his children home, that being in a certain church in no way inhibits my opportunity to get back to God.

I believe Joseph saw God and Christ and the BOM is a record of real people.

I reconcile those by understanding that if the effort is to help people receive ordinances and to become Christlike, then I am happy that God’s “True and Living” church is on the earth helping all God’s children receive ordinances (temple work) and helping God’s children become Christlike (setting an example to the world, having influence for good, helping lift others up.

While one has no salvational benefit of being or not being mormon, I think being in the church is moving towards acceptance of more truth. If the purpose is to willingly come unto Christ, to submit one’s will, to serve and to sacrifice I can completely see why the LDS church is God’s preferred vehicle to help us become like him faster.

I believe all who desire to come unto Christ or to become Christlike (even if they don’t know who christ is) will move forward and and eventually get there. But I think those who utilize life’s opportunities to submit one’s will, to serve and to sacrifice will get there faster and prepared to assist others after this life. Hence the purpose in the church – to help all come unto Christ. Name a church that requires as much dedication and service and sacrifice as the LDS church?

Also it is the only true and living church, not the only true church. All church’s have truth and none have all the truth hence AoF #9 we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. <

---

church admits it does not have all truth. But it is the only church with truth that is living (prophets and revelation for the whole)

ut not all have

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

…

I reconcile those by understanding that if the effort is to help people receive ordinances and to become Christlike, then I am happy that God’s “True and Living” church is on the earth helping all God’s children receive ordinances (temple work)….how much dedication and service and sacrifice as the LDS church?

Also it is the only true and living church, not the only true church. All church’s have truth and none have all the truth hence AoF #9 we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. <

---

church admits it does not have all truth. But it is the only church with truth that is living (prophets and revelation for the whole)

Do you understand how arrogant that sounds?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald, fwiw, anything that claims to be right or true in a way that something else isn’t sounds arrogant to those who disagree. Any time you say you understand something your extended family doesn’t understand and that you wish they would understand something the way you understand it, it sounds arrogant to them, I’m positive.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

…

I reconcile those by understanding that if the effort is to help people receive ordinances and to become Christlike, then I am happy that God’s “True and Living” church is on the earth helping all God’s children receive ordinances (temple work)….how much dedication and service and sacrifice as the LDS church?

Also it is the only true and living church, not the only true church. All church’s have truth and none have all the truth hence AoF #9 we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. <

---

church admits it does not have all truth. But it is the only church with truth that is living (prophets and revelation for the whole)

Do you understand how arrogant that sounds?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure there is a nicer way to state my stance without giving up what I hold to be true. sorry

[Anonymous]

I skipped ctoday, fought with my wife and now I feel like crap. I hate days with no spirt. Feeling

Sick and Don’ t want to do anything else. Can’t wait until tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

I skipped ctoday, fought with my wife and now I feel like crap. I hate days with no spirt. Feeling

Sick and Don’ t want to do anything else. Can’t wait until tomorrow.

Some days suck. I get it. All I can do is promise that this phase doesn’t last forever. Regardless of the end conclusions there is beauty ahead.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

cwald, fwiw, anything that claims to be right or true in a way that something else isn’t sounds arrogant to those who disagree. Any time you say you understand something your extended family doesn’t understand and that you wish they would understand something the way you understand it, it sounds arrogant to them, I’m positive.

Just saying.

Sure…but I don’t claim to have the “one and only TRUE and LIVING” pathway.

Are you saying, Bill, that you do?

Are your prophets and revelation more valid and inspired than mine?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

cwald wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

…

I reconcile those by understanding that if the effort is to help people receive ordinances and to become Christlike, then I am happy that God’s “True and Living” church is on the earth helping all God’s children receive ordinances (temple work)….how much dedication and service and sacrifice as the LDS church?

Also it is the only true and living church, not the only true church. All church’s have truth and none have all the truth hence AoF #9 we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. <

---

church admits it does not have all truth. But it is the only church with truth that is living (prophets and revelation for the whole)

Do you understand how arrogant that sounds?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure there is a nicer way to state my stance without giving up what I hold to be true. sorry

Well…then perhaps Bill, we are at an impass.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts