Richard Bushman’s Description and help for Faith Crisis

[Anonymous]

Cwald, you’re taking shots at a good friend.

Remember that, please.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Chad, you’re taking shots at a good friend.

Remember that, please.

Are you refering to me?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Chad, you’re taking shots at a good friend.

Remember that, please.

I thought it was a fair question?

The church will fail to help those in faith crisis if they use “one and only true and living church” approach.

Fail.

That approach leaves no room for the middle way.

But if that is insulting and against board rules and considered pop shots to say…I guess I better take the night off.

And fwiw….I consider bill a friend too…hell, the only reason he is here is because I asked him to give up trying to help those apostates and vultures at MDDB. …hell, he might even be able to do some good at the staylds board.

But I’m still going to call it the way I see it…

Period.

And you probably shouldn’t be using my real name without permission…just out of principle.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

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

One and only true AND living pathway? nope Only true and Living church? yes there is a huge difference which I explained clearly in my previous post

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

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

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I believe the Prophet and apostles are appointed by Christ to represent his true and living church even as flawed as they are.

I believe the Holy Ghost is the most valid and inspired source and he can work through various mediums, but I don’t feel the other mediums outside of the church hold the keys to perform the ordinances nor speak to the world on behalf of Christ. I still accept that an individual could get a major revelation for themselves or their family from another medium, as the Holy Ghost confirms.

I will leave it at that.

[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.

I went to church alone, while my wife was home with the sick kids. I felt empty as I drove home from church today. Sometimes we have bad days even when we try to do what is right.

After expressing my frustrations of church with my wife, she gave me a free pass from church anytime I want. I think I may take some breather Sundays, especially this month when my calling has me doing church stuff 3-4 days a week.

[Anonymous]

cwald, I didn’t make my comment an admin note, and I didn’t mention the rules of this forum in my comment. I wrote it as an individual and a friend, not as an admin. When I speak as an admin, I try to make it crystal clear that I am doing so. This was not such a time, since you broke no rules and needed no moderation.

As to the substance, I was referring to this quote:

Quote:

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

Having said that, one of our primary positions here is that we can and will disagree about lots of things, and it never is wrong to express our different views. Again, if we want others to accept our right to create our own views, we have to accept their right to do so, as well – and, ideally, come to appreciate and respect most of them, even if we continue to disagree. My main purpose in making my comment had nothing to do with being an admin or moderator; it had everything to do with pointing out to a friend that he was lashing out at another friend who cares enough to be here and put himself on the line, sincerely and honestly.

[Anonymous]

I think that OP pretty fairly summarizes where I’m at. I never went through an “anger” phase, though. I was never angry or upset at anyone over what I’d been taught my whole life – I myself had been the happy TBM’er on a mission, as the EQP, in the bishopric preaching that message. At the time, I truly and sincerely believed what I was teaching. I’m not perfect by any means, but I’m not a hypocrite. When I taught it, I believed it. And that’s what I still do. Everything I teach, testify of and preach is what I believe. Why should I be angry at someone for teaching something they genuinely believe to be true, even if I don’t think it’s necessarily true? When the JWs come to my door, I politely tell them I’m happy with my church, I offer them a glass of water and decline to take the Watchtower. I’m not angry they’ve come – I’m impressed at their faithfulness to what they believe.

To Cwald’s point regarding exclusivity – among the monotheists there are few religious traditions that are not exclusive. Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs, etc. To my way of thinking, if you’re a Mormon – or a Muslim, Jew, Catholic, etc. – and you don’t think your way is best for you, why aren’t you out joining yourself to the way that is best? Now that “best” may be subjective, not objective. I have found that Mormonism is best for me. A Muslim may come to the conclusion that Islam is best for him. And we may both be right. I read D&C 1:30 and say “yep, that sounds right to me,” and he recites every day “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” and says “yep, that’s surely right.”

One aspect of the Church that pulled me through my faith transition was the idea that the Church is growing spiritually, acquiring new truth, honing the truth, as it were. There aren’t many other churches out there who will say “bring all of the truth you’ve already got and add to what we’ve found as well.” While many Mormons may not be as humble about our exclusivity as we ought to be (as you noted, Cwald, it does sound awfully arrogant), this doctrine is wonderfully humble and allows for a Church to grow, adapt and accept new truths. That’s an aspect about the Church I really like.

[Anonymous]

Kumahito wrote:

To Cwald’s point regarding exclusivity – among the monotheists there are few religious traditions that are not exclusive. Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs, etc. To my way of thinking, if you’re a Mormon – or a Muslim, Jew, Catholic, etc. – and you don’t think your way is best for you, why aren’t you out joining yourself to the way that is best? Now that “best” may be subjective, not objective. I have found that Mormonism is best for me. A Muslim may come to the conclusion that Islam is best for him. And we may both be right. I read D&C 1:30 and say “yep, that sounds right to me,” and he recites every day “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” and says “yep, that’s surely right.”….

And that is the danger of religion…and why any effort to save folks who are struggling and going though faith crisis, while insisting on maintaining the “One and only true and living church” doctrine, will FAIL.

FAIL.

IMO of course.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

And that is the danger of religion…and why any effort to save folks who are struggling and going though faith crisis, while insisting on maintaining the “One and only true and living church” doctrine, will FAIL.

FAIL.

IMO of course.

Hey cwald/Ray/DB/Kumahito a few comments.

First, I think Ray should go back and remove his real name from your post. [Done. Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn’t thinking.] It might have been accidental, but it makes me nervous. A lot of us post openly with the reassurance of anonymity. I know no ill intent was meant Ray.

To the question of ‘only true and living.’ To be fair to DB, he is usually quite respectful about not throwing that kind of language around here. I had directly asked him about 1:30 in the context of his faith crisis. I wanted to know ‘where he’s at,’ and although the statement ‘only true and living’ makes me uncomfortable, I don’t think DB should pretend he doesn’t believe it to make me more comfortable. I’m done with hiding my changed beliefs and apologising for them. I support DB that same privilege. On staylds and everywhere.

To cwald and Kumahito, I’m somewhere around you two. I can stay associated to mormonism if I’m not required to take 1:30 literally. I’m happy to be with people who do believe, they can teach it too if needed. But I don’t want to ‘have to.’ I hope that’s what Holland meant in his PBS interview.

If the ultimatum was ‘full literal buy-in or leave,’ I’d struggle but would be unlikely to stay. I’m glad that’s usually not given as an ultimatum.

I’m going to start a new thread in General Discussions on balancing being in an ‘absolutist’ church, while not believing all claims ‘absolutely.’

[Anonymous]

Quote:

First, I think Ray should go back and remove his real name from your post. [Done. Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn’t thinking.]

Thanks Ray. You’re a good guy and I appreciate your dedication to the board. Some day I hope to post proudly under my real name as you do. Until then… Mackay it is.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

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.

Well said . At the end of a Sabbath day here, I’m so thankful for my ward. My husband was getting together a lesson on baptism and read about possibly origins having to do with Jewish ritual bathing, etc. But the idea that most touched him was, “You can’t baptise yourself.” God intends for us to be connected through baptism, and the ordinance itself helps remind you of others.

[Anonymous]

…

my opinion is that when anyone, regardless of their religion, claims an idealogy to have “the one and only true and living…” and exclusive revelation from God via their prophets…. its going to sound arrogant.

And it is dangerous.

And it defeats the idea of a middle way.

I’m not directing this at anyone particular.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

…

my opinion is that when anyone, regardless of their religion, claims an idealogy to have “the one and only true and living…” and exclusive revelation from God via their prophets…. its going to sound arrogant.

And it is dangerous.

And it defeats the idea of a middle way.

I’m not directing this at anyone particular.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I agree, but I think that as I and others embrace a mormon middle way we need to accept we’re a minority in an organisation that preaches ‘one way.’ And that’s fine. As long as they let me and others take a middle way, they can have their one way.

I certainly wouldn’t want DB or others to pretend to be something they’re not. I’m glad we don’t have a whole raft of militant mormons flooding this board with calls-to-repentance. I don’t consider DB to be in that group and appreciate that when posting here he doesn’t impose his conclusions on us in a heavy-handed way.

Again, apologies if my direct question took the thread in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

cwald wrote:

…

my opinion is that when anyone, regardless of their religion, claims an idealogy to have “the one and only true and living…” and exclusive revelation from God via their prophets…. its going to sound arrogant.

And it is dangerous.

And it defeats the idea of a middle way.

I’m not directing this at anyone particular.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I agree, but I think that as I and others embrace a mormon middle way we need to accept we’re a minority in an organisation that preaches ‘one way.’ And that’s fine. As long as they let me and others take a middle way, they can have their one way.

I certainly wouldn’t want DB or others to pretend to be something they’re not. I’m glad we don’t have a whole raft of militant mormons flooding this board with calls-to-repentance. I don’t consider DB to be in that group and appreciate that when posting here he doesn’t impose his conclusions on us in a heavy-handed way.

Again, apologies if my direct question took the thread in the wrong direction.

Fair enough.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts