Richard Bushman’s Description and help for Faith Crisis

[Anonymous]

Fwiw,

I was on an agnostic discussion board a couple of years ago trying to explain how Mormons view baptisms for the dead to people who hated the very thought of it. I told them all upfront that I understand it sounds arrogant to those who don’t accept and believe in it, but I wanted them to understand why most Mormons don’t see it as arrogant – and I also pointed out that it isn’t any more arrogant for Mormons to believe they are right and others are wrong than for others to believe they are right and Mormons are wrong.

That’s worth considering, imo – and I think it’s important for us here to remember.

Let me phrase it this way:

At the extremes, a “liberal / progressive” position is no different than a “conservative / fundamentalist” position – in that both are based on inclusion vs. exclusion and both are absolutes. The conservative / fundamentalist position says, “I am right to hang onto tradition, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” The liberal / progressive position says, “Nobody is wrong / everything is relative – unless you disagree with me.” The ciricles each position draws are smaller or larger, but the core position is the exact same: “I’m right; you’re wrong.”

A middle / individual way is hard specifically because it requires rejection of easy extremes, and “the natural (wo)man” gravitates toward easy extremes. Biterness also pushes toward easy extremes, which is why I intentionally try to avoid cancerous activities and associations to the greatest extent possible. Been there; done that; don’t need or want it at this point in my life.

[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.

If I remember my LDS history correctly (and this is a big assumption), JS dealt with this issue from 1830 until the end of his life. Other members of the Church were constantly getting their own revelations through various methods – peeping stones, trances, etc. Joseph struggled to “lay down the law” so to speak; to enforce the standard that while every person is entitled to personal revelation, only The Prophet is entitled to revelation for the whole Church. There were a constant stream of members and hangers-on who claimed to be receiving revelations to try and steer the infant Church. Particularly during the Kirtland/Jackson County period when there were two large concentrations of members, JS seemed to be running back and forth putting out bushfires between the two groups.

There were similar issues with the apostles following Christ’s death and the spread of the Gospel to the previously-pagan Gentiles. Paul’s epistles and John’s Revelation are full of warnings about false apostles, false teachers establishing their own doctrine.

I say all this just to make this point: it should surprise no one that a religious organization tries to monopolize the power to speak to God and direct the earthly kingdom. The last thing the Big 15 want is a theological democracy. Neither does the Pope. Neither does the Archbishop of Cantebury. I’m not defending this centralization of power, just trying to explain that it’s always been with us and likely always will be so long as human beings are running things. One difference between our Church and many others, though, is that the Church does accept doctrinally that I am entitled to personal revelation (I think this is accepted doctrinally although often not in practice). That I can take anything they pronounce from SLC and confirm with God if it’s true or not. Not many other churches accept that as doctrine. And to steer this back to the OP, that’s why I’m glad there are Bushmans and Givenses in the Church to carve out round holes in the square pegboard of the Church for people like me.

[Anonymous]

Also there is a big difference between “THE TRUE and living church” and “the true AND LIVING church”

I see every church as having truth but not having all of it (lds church included) I justify saying it doesn’t have all truth with AoF #9 which says there is more truth yet to be revealed. But I see this church as the church that Christ has authorized ordinances (which every child of God will receive those ordinances – so no favortism) And he set the church as a beacon on a hill. It only takes a little bit of leaven. My view doesn’t discount God working with all of his children nor does it have the only path that assists one back to God.

[Anonymous]

Kumahito 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.

If I remember my LDS history correctly (and this is a big assumption), JS dealt with this issue from 1830 until the end of his life. Other members of the Church were constantly getting their own revelations through various methods – peeping stones, trances, etc. Joseph struggled to “lay down the law” so to speak; to enforce the standard that while every person is entitled to personal revelation, only The Prophet is entitled to revelation for the whole Church. There were a constant stream of members and hangers-on who claimed to be receiving revelations to try and steer the infant Church. Particularly during the Kirtland/Jackson County period when there were two large concentrations of members, JS seemed to be running back and forth putting out bushfires between the two groups.

There were similar issues with the apostles following Christ’s death and the spread of the Gospel to the previously-pagan Gentiles. Paul’s epistles and John’s Revelation are full of warnings about false apostles, false teachers establishing their own doctrine.

I say all this just to make this point: it should surprise no one that a religious organization tries to monopolize the power to speak to God and direct the earthly kingdom. The last thing the Big 15 want is a theological democracy. Neither does the Pope. Neither does the Archbishop of Cantebury. I’m not defending this centralization of power, just trying to explain that it’s always been with us and likely always will be so long as human beings are running things. One difference between our Church and many others, though, is that the Church does accept doctrinally that I am entitled to personal revelation (I think this is accepted doctrinally although often not in practice). That I can take anything they pronounce from SLC and confirm with God if it’s true or not. Not many other churches accept that as doctrine. And to steer this back to the OP, that’s why I’m glad there are Bushmans and Givenses in the Church to carve out round holes in the square pegboard of the Church for people like me.

There was a reason the 14 F’s and the Two Lines if Communication, talks were both delivered GC Oct 2010.

Sorry…I don’t think we have as much freedom of revelation as you think we do.

Sure…we are all allowed personal revelation…as long as it agrees with the Q15’s. Oaks….TLOC Oct CG 2010.

My personal revelation says that the church is not the One and Only True and Living Church. Are the Q15 and my local leaders okay with that?

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Also there is a big difference between “THE TRUE and living church” and “the true AND LIVING church”

I see every church as having truth but not having all of it (lds church included) I justify saying it doesn’t have all truth with AoF #9 which says there is more truth yet to be revealed. But I see this church as the church that Christ has authorized ordinances (which every child of God will receive those ordinances – so no favortism) And he set the church as a beacon on a hill. It only takes a little bit of leaven. My view doesn’t discount God working with all of his children nor does it have the only path that assists one back to God.

Thanks bill. I think this is a more universal way of expression.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Comments I have gotten after discussing Bushman’s article elsewhere

Quote:

Richard Bushman’s Description of Faith Crisis

http://dan-christian…01_archive.html

This sounds too much like a serf-portrait to me. I think it is a description of Bushman’s own “faith crisis”. It shouldn’t be imposed on everybody else; neither does it mean that if they don’t have the same “faith crisis,” they are lacking somehow, either in inquisitiveness, or in intellectual capacity, or something else. Should everyone who becomes aware of that information automatically have a “faith crisis”? I have known most of that stuff since before the Internet; but never had a faith crisis. Does that mean that there is something wrong with me? I don’t think so! It is more likely the other way round.

=================================================================================

Quote:

DBMormon

People are not struggling because of the changes in the church, they are struggling because the changes are only now occurring. If you see the church’s changes as the cause and the loss of faith as the effect…it is the other way around and that is obvious from talking to people who struggle.

Quote:

With all due respect, poppycock! If people have a testimony of the gospel given of the Holy Spirit, why should they struggle, period?

================================================================================

Quote:

I can only speak for myself, but as a convert to the church, I’m of the opinion that no faithful member of the church needs apologetics.

======================================================================================================

The issue is those who either haven’t encountered the difficult info or those who have but somehow made it through unscathed have a tendency to think of those who struggle as less then and they wonder why if they have not had a crisis why should anyone. Now mind you this is a minority but they are loud and seem only self aware and live in a bubble.

Today I hurt…… I hurt for what some of you put up with and deal with among a few who think they’re helping but are instead making it worse. If I could do one thing it would be to have an apostle like Elder Holland or Pres Uchtdorf give a talk at conference detailing the depth of faith crisis, how prevalent, and what helps, what doesn’t, and condemn self righteous behavior, and encourage those strugling to be more open about their journey so we all may learn. That would at least put out a formal response on what we are up against as a church and what not to do from here forward…..

AND state it plainly, not with parables or beating around the bush…. I would applaud it. I also wouldn’t be surprised if it occurs.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Today I hurt…… I hurt for what some of you put up with and deal with among a few who think they’re helping but are instead making it worse. If I could do one thing it would be to have an apostle like Elder Holland or Pres Uchtdorf give a talk at conference detailing the depth of faith crisis, how prevalent, and what helps, what doesn’t, and condemn self righteous behavior, and encourage those strugling to be more open about their journey so we all may learn. That would at least put out a formal response on what we are up against as a church and what not to do from here forward…..

AND state it plainly, not with parables or beating around the bush…. I would applaud it. I also wouldn’t be surprised if it occurs.

I would also applaud if it could happen, but I don’t believe it can. Just as giving medication to the entire population would help some, it would also poison others. This is why the topic will need to be masked in parables. It is a difficult problem — the same way that much of life is a difficult problem.

To the insensitive and somewhat self-righteous poster you copied above I will say “it’s okay, I know where you’re coming from; you don’t realize how hurtful your comments can be and I forgive you for them.” His reality is not my reality, and as such he has absolutely no effect in my world. It does become exponentially more complicated when these comments come from close family or friends, but I still make an effort to forgive them in the same way. Hurtful comments most often come from fear, and I don’t want to press his fears into reality.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

To the insensitive and somewhat self-righteous poster you copied above I will say “it’s okay, I know where you’re coming from; you don’t realize how hurtful your comments can be and I forgive you for them.” His reality is not my reality, and as such he has absolutely no effect in my world.

Yes we do need to be the understanding ones don’t we? Because we’ve been there (full of faith with no doubts) where as they have not been where we are and so can’t really understand us. Thus it become our duty to be compassionate and understanding, because we can.

I believe the one essential thing that differentiates the person from having a faith crisis or not when learning about “the issues” is whether one is psychologically able to process the question “What if it’s true/not true?” I learned about masonry and seer stones and multiple first visions and yada yada years ago. But I NEVER truly considered the possibly of the church being false. I had in depth conversations with atheist about the psychology of God in our mind. They would try so hard to help me “see the light” and realize the flaws of my ways. I also remember telling them that no matter what they said, I would never deny there was a God. No evidence could have convinced me, so entrenched was I in my world view. Somehow, the ability to internalize this question (even if not intentionally) is a pivot point of a faith transition. It moves one from Fowler’s stage 3 to stage 4, thus bringing with it the ability to more objectively analyse one’s beliefs.

So yes, I understand how it is that one can not have an issue with “the issues.” Much how we don’t choose to enter a faith transition (for the most part) neither do they truly choose not to.

[Anonymous]

A conference talk might be a great idea or a series of articles written by a GA. Especially one that doesn’t add comments that inflate the problem. Sometimes I get the sense that a statement is made and there is a touch of “be nice to them, they’ll come around someday.”

My only other concern is the for the disaffected community Elder Hollland leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths. His pulpit pounding, nearly screamed talk about the Book of Mormon and his public testimony set a painful stage. It added a wall of bricks to the mounting wall that was there.

I would love if some single address could fix the experience, but it can’t. This requires a great surgeons touch. Thanks for taking one for our team Bishop. Good luck as you move forward.

[Anonymous]

Thanks DB, it’s a good reminder of why I spend very little time at MDDB. I have experienced only a little of this attitude face to face (thankfully).

I’ve said it before, but I appreciate your ‘mission.’ Having seen the flack you get over there it would be easy to just tow the line and be part of the ‘in-crowd’ – you’re making a difference anyway.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

My only other concern is the for the disaffected community Elder Hollland leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths. His pulpit pounding, nearly screamed talk about the Book of Mormon and his public testimony set a painful stage. It added a wall of bricks to the mounting wall that was there.

It’s odd because it’s in complete contrast to the tone of this interview:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

Quote:

PBS: You say there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there’s no middle way.

EH: … If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. …

I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

… There are some things we can’t give away. There are some foundational stones. If you don’t have those, you don’t have anything. So the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, those are pretty basic things. …

[Anonymous]

thanks Bishop.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

In Elder Holland’s defense, that talk focused very narrowly on only one group of people – those who claim Joseph was an intentional fraud and that the Book of Mormon, therefore, is trash.

I know it was heard by many people to be attacking anyone who questioned its historicity in any way, but he never said that in the talk. I believe the quote mackay11 provided is much more indicative of how he views people who merely question historicity.

[Anonymous]

I agree with both Mackay and Ray. I also know that those two addresses PBS and GC feel very disconnected to many who are struggling with the historicity issue and their place in the religion.

Now in reflection maybe he would be the best person to address how the church views members who have struggles.

So often I want to fix the world for everyone – and I ache when I come up short.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

So often I want to fix the world for everyone – and I ache when I come up short.

When I read this I couldn’t help but think of this image.

[img]http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/hey-look-i-fixed-it-apple-android-aryeh-d.jpg[/img]

😆

[Author]

Posts