Richard Bushman'S Description Of Faith Crisis

[volgadon]

A bit overbold a claim. The internet certainly provides many challenges, but it is also a powerful tool for spreading and consolidating religion. Religions have often been amongst the pioneers of such approaches, something which tends to be overlooked in technological and atheist discourse.

If anything, the internet makes "pap and pablum" more prevalent and accessible. Look at wikipedia. I can almost gaurantee that the easier it is to find a quick answer, so much the fewer the people looking beyond it will be.

In order to avoid derailing the thread, I started a new one with further thoughts on this. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59931-technology-and-the-saint-impressarios-or-will-internet-make-or-break-religion/

[Calm]

This may be a little off topic but I'm going to say it anyway, since it does, indirectly, relate to OP--

A while back there was a feature in the church news, a little story. A mother is preparing for a lesson she is going to teach in church on Sunday and she has all of her books and the scriptures laid out on the table. And she says, speaking to her daughter,

"How am I to make sense of all this?"

And her daughter replies, "Why worry about it? An inspired church writing committee has already done all of the work for you. All you have to do is follow the manual. It's all right there," and she points to the church lesson manual which is among the books and things on the table.

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the story. And it just made me cringe.

And if she had read the manual this is what she would have seen:

How to Use This Manual

This manual is a tool to help you teach the doctrines of the gospel from the scriptures and Church history. It has been written for youth and adult Gospel Doctrine classes and is to be used every four years. Additional references and commentaries should not be necessary to teach the lessons. Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

“Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 93; orEnsign, May 1983, 68).

Review each lesson at least a week in advance. When you study the reading assignment and the lesson material early, you will receive thoughts and impressions during the week that will help you teach the lesson. As you ponder the lesson during the week, pray for the Spirit to guide you. Have faith that the Lord will bless you.

Each lesson in this manual contains more information than you will probably be able to teach in one class period. Seek the Spirit of the Lord in selecting the scripture accounts, questions, and other lesson material that will best meet the needs of class members. Keep in mind the ages, interests, and backgrounds of class members.

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/helps-for-the-teacher?lang=eng Edited February 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[sunstoned]

Revelation to the prophet is not enacted through official proclamations or additions to canon. It this were the case we would have football stadiums full of new scriptures. Each time the church makes a polity change it is done after receiving revelation from God. There have been numerous changes in policy and prace over the years. These are not one mans opinion, this is the mind and will of the Lord.

CFR

Everything you have just said here is your own opinion.

[Storm Rider]

Revelation to the prophet is not enacted through official proclamations or additions to canon. It this were the case we would have football stadiums full of new scriptures. Each time the church makes a polity change it is done after receiving revelation from God. There have been numerous changes in policy and practice over the years. These are not one mans opinion, this is the mind and will of the Lord.

Actually revelation by the prophet is enacted through canon and/or proclamation. If it is not done so, it is not official revelation. Please Freedom, think about his before you talk. Look at our canon of scripture today; exactly how many revelations have been added since Joseph Smith? That is hardly a football field; it has hardly increased the size of our canon. Policy is not revelation and never has been. Policy is policy; nothing more and nothing less. Please review the 89th Section of the D&C and tell me what is wrong with our current policy; i.e. what directly conflicts between the Word of God and policy. Do you think this type of conflict is acceptable? Don't you think an actual revelation should be required before we begin to tinker with the Word of God. Please understand that I am not making this up, I am not instigating this, nor have I created it. It is what is. They are not one man's opinion, but each policy began with a single man that was a prophet, but was not acting as a prophet, instituting a new policy and each succeeding president followed likewise. You speak as if a prophet is not a man, but solely a mouthpiece of God. The reality is quite different; they are sinners that are just as human as you are; however, they are called of God to serve as prophets, seers, and revelators. Your position is untenable for students of Church history because through its study it is so apparent that they are men. Their humanity is what makes their accomplishments so wonderful and is evidence of their calling and their sanction by God. Do you actually think a prophet gets up ever day and every word, every action, every thought is that of a prophet of God? Do you allow for no humanity in our leaders? Do you actually think that creating a policy that Blacks cannot enter the temple and can no longer hold the priesthood should rely solely on policy and not demand revelation. If revelation, where is it? If not, why not?

[DBMormon]

It means that unless I have a good reason not to follow, I should follow, even if I don't always like it.

I agree 100% but if it goes against my concience which is the only reason to disobey a prophet, the Holy Ghost is the buffer to decide whose conscience is correct.

[DBMormon]

And yet almost everyone would know exactly what we were talking about if we were to say "116 pages" in my experience.

Even the children get taught this:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

That darn Martin Harris....... is more like what is conveyed and felt

[rameumptom]

I think we are seeing a major change in the Church. First with the JSPP. Now with the Revelations in Context site, which deals with things like Oliver Cowdery's divining rod. The change in the Youth teaching program, will also be a positive.

These new revelations coming out from the Church and scholars (Bushman on Joseph Smith, Turner on Brigham Young) are going to send the members temporarily into a realization that history and human history are very messy. But as Bushman notes, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. We can dislike Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl, yet still view him as a prophet, struggling to figure out how to implement God's will.

We are in the middle of these major changes, and so we are seeing many members struggle with their testimonies, which were based upon a flawless Church with infallible prophets. Now, we will have to deal with a Church that is learning to grow and adapt to new situations, with prophets and leaders who are just as human as you and me. As a Church, we'll adapt, and get better at all of this. Heck, my Gospel Doctrine teacher may be bringing in a divining rod to class next week, as she discusses Oliver Cowdery and his gift of Aaron! How's that for change in the Church?

Will we lose some people? Of course we will. But we will have many more strengthened in their testimonies, as they see how the Church has learned from its mistakes, been blessed by its revelations, and how we have prospered as a people. Oh, and I live in Indianapolis, so I'm even further away from Temple Square than Kerry is.

[rameumptom]

I grew up in the same church and never felt compelled to worship according to any prescribed interpretation. These so-called teachings have never been adopted and always challenged. Nobody is raised learning a sanitized history and speculative doctrine. They just choose to be lazy and never read on their own and then when they are compelled to think for themselves they feel cheated as if they were entitled to scholarly instruction from their 22 year old bus driver sunday school teacher.

I joined in 1975, when there was a lot of speculation going on among the GAs. It was in their books, and spoken over the pulpit at General Conference. Elder McConkie's and others suppositions found their way into many of our manuals, going beyond the actual doctrines of the Church. We went through a "dumbed down" phase, as the Church sought to get back to the core doctrines. There was a useful and important purpose to this. Compare the old Gospel Principles manual with the new one, and you'll see how Elder McConkie and others' quotes were removed and replaced by newer GA quotes that support the current beliefs and core doctrines.

Now, with the Internet, etc., we are entering into a period of reviewing our history in full. We aren't writing faithful, inspiring Joseph Fielding Smith-like "histories" of our leaders and the Church. We are now dealing with the whole story more and more. We are in the early stages of doing this, with JSPP and other projects taking off where Bushman and others began this journey a few years ago. It is a needed move, as there are many who are getting their information from unfriendly sources. In this case, we can present the history in a more faithful manner, so that the member or investigator does not have to feel that things are being hidden or that there is a dichotomy, false or real.

While I loved much of what Elder McConkie wrote, I'm glad we're moving beyond such speculative times. And while I love the concept of focusing on the core doctrines, I'm glad we're now dealing with issues that have long been kept poorly hidden from the members.

[Storm Rider]

These types of conversations so quickly turn adversarial. One side expresses and opinion and another expresses their opinion and they conflict. The challenge is that members of the Church can disagree. Some will believe that when the prophet speaks he is always serving as the mouthpiece of the Lord. Others are more circumspect about when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man. I am not interested in being positioned as an individual of little faith; however, I freely admit that I am a sinner and stand condemned by my own actions, thoughts, and words as being unworthy of all my blessings. I will also freely and with strong commitment confirm that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't think it is helpful nor required for me to prove my service in the Church, but suffice it to say that I have been a member for decades, served in numerous leadership capacities, and served for years in the temple. My words are not intended or meant to harm the faith of others, but are intended to express my own personal challenges.

[Maidservant]

Please don't misinterpret me and let me be clear. I see this change as revelation. But all revelation comes in answer to a question. The question - Heavenly Father, what would you have us do to help those in faith crisis who are struggling or leaving the church"?

Agreed.

[The Grimace]

Bushman seems to advocate a more moderate church. I like that because I can picture in my mind an LDS church that is different than today's church. For instance, I think there will be Saints who are faithful, temple recommend holders, just as there are today. And, I think there will be Saints who chose not to hold a recommend, who choose not to pay a full tithe but to give what their conscience dictates; who choose not to follow the word of wisdom ascetically; who choose to say no to endless meetings and callings, rather choosing time for themselves.

And most of all, these Saints will be numerous, will fill chapels, and will be *accepted*, never judged.

Would you welcome this kind of change?

[Maidservant]

I am one of six brothers. Our father was a mission prez, a stake prez, and a close confidant and friend of a recent church prez. Of my six brothers, only me and one other still remain in the church. Of the four who are out of the church, two left specifically because of inability to reconcile the JS they know today from the one they feel they were taught all during their youth, their missions, and since by the church. As for me, I started reading church history when I was in my 20's, five years or so after returning from my mission. I knew all about polygamy, I knew all about polyandry the minute the Todd Compton book came out, and none of these or other recent revelations or books that have out come out has shaken me. To me, it makes the man (JS) and what he knew all the more interesting. "Truth is stranger than fiction," the saying goes, "but not so tidy." If our church history were tidy and orderly--well, then I might doubt it. Real history is never "tidy" nor "orderly". Today I still believe in the founding narrative of the church, although I have become somewhat disillusioned with correlation and the "dumbing down" another poster mentioned. But for the most part I am okay, I am active in the church, and I think I always will be.

But my brothers--you know the saying "perception is reality". My two brothers, as Bushman noted in his essay, feel the church has "deceived" them, and no amount of talking on my part will convince them otherwise. One of these brothers came onto a forum like this with his questions (in fact it may have been this forum) in the early days of his disillusionment, and was told something like, "Brother, you have failed the faith test"--and it just did no good, in fact it just added to the beefs he already had.

And by the way, I should note that both of these brothers had been bishops, both were assistants as missionaries, and both have children and wives who are today still active.

It is interesting that when I was at BYU years ago there was nobody in the religion dept. whom you could ask about polygamy or some of these thorny church history issues. It was always, "These questions are not essential for your salvation" or something like that. It is too late for people like my brothers, but I would hope that today when a student there has a question about polygamy/polyandry, not only at BYU but any seminary or institute, that he can get something other than correlated answers. I think if my brothers had been brought up with the knowledge of these issues, if their questions had been dealt with early on and by somebody faithful and in the church who knew what he/she was talking about--well, things would be different for them today. But as it is, they both learned about what to them is the "real Joseph Smith" by people I would consider anti-Mormon, or enemies.

I love what you have to say, but who and where are the 'un-human' people we should go to?

What bishop or professor or even apostle is there that isn't struggling to just live their life?

I have had R.S. presidents and bishops come and tell me what I should do as far as, "Don't work, you'll hurt your kids." "Start working now, your husband is too sick." I had the choice to be very angry about their lack of even knowing what they were talking about, because I knew that I had already gone through the revelation process with my heavenly Father and I didn't need to be told lick. But what I DID get to learn was that--boy, I don't want to be bishop or R.S. prez and be responsible for people's lives in a sense and be responsible for overarching revelation and be responsible for people's salvation. And so I forgive and give a wide berth big time!

There is no "THE CHURCH". Who is that? Seriously, name who that is? (not just saying to you, but to all the thread). If we will list the 15 PEOPLE who are the apostles--how could they be any body but who they are based on the life they lived? They grew up learning and knowing certain things, being part of a certain narrative. It's not that easy to break out of, assuming it needs to even be done.

The only person whose feet this is at is Jesus. Either this is his church or it isn't. Either he's telling the truth, and he created the right organization even with its messiness, or he's messing with us humans, OR we as humans are REALLY off track to the point it isn't Jesus' church anymore, so then what's the point. We can't fix Jesus, so if he doesn't like this Church, he'll make another one.

I do agree that I hope as a people and a church we keep learning, we keep being patient with each other, and I agree with you and others that we can improve our way of having knowledge and of loving each other whatever our choices--of having places where questions can be asked an answered. And we can keep having discussions like this. But my point of view IN a discussion like this is--forget about if our Sunday School teacher is a 22 yr old bus driver--what if our bishop is? Of course he might be overwhelmed by having to in one fell swoop completely make a person FEEL BETTER ABOUT JOSEPH SMITH'S POLYGAMY. Who can do that?

[volgadon]

who choose to say no to endless meetings and callings, rather choosing time for themselves.

And most of all, these Saints will be numerous, will fill chapels,

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Basically, you have described semi or inactive members. Why should we now assume that attendance will be higher?

[Maidservant]

This may be a little off topic but I'm going to say it anyway, since it does, indirectly, relate to OP--

A while back there was a feature in the church news, a little story. A mother is preparing for a lesson she is going to teach in church on Sunday and she has all of her books and the scriptures laid out on the table. And she says, speaking to her daughter,

"How am I to make sense of all this?"

And her daughter replies, "Why worry about it? An inspired church writing committee has already done all of the work for you. All you have to do is follow the manual. It's all right there," and she points to the church lesson manual which is among the books and things on the table.

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the story. And it just made me cringe. Our church leaders challenge us to live the Gospel, to keep the commandments--as they should. But I wonder why we are not challenged to study the scriptures more, to delve into things, to learn; to read our real church history side-by-side with the "faithful history" we are taught in stories from conference or church lesson manuals (and I am a big believer in the "faithful history", the kind we find in the BOM, for example, the kind Moroni gives to us). When we went to college, and when our kids go to college now, we/they are challenged to "ask questions", "look into things!" Why doesn't the church challenge us to do the same when it comes to our religion, especially since the signal act/happening/event of the last 2000 years--i.e., the First Vision--came about because of a question: Joseph Smith, kneeling in a grove of trees, to ask a question of God. Or was that the last question that ever needed to be asked, since through that question God delivered the answer book to Joseph Smith and now questions are not necessary ever again?

Curriculum 2013? ha ha. I dunno

Also I have been hearing more in General Conference over even just the last 5 years more and more about relying on the Spirit and I have been taking that as--it's time. It's here. BE the church of everyone is a prophet, like the scriptures promise.

But how that really plays out I don't know, can we really step up.

[Maidservant]

What I was referring to is the period where Blacks were not able to enjoy the blessings of the temple simply because of the color of their skin. No revelation was used to reveal this was the Lord’s desire. Just one day they couldn't whereas the day before they could.

Then in the late 1920's or very early 1930's it was decided you needed to obey the Word of Wisdom; it became a commandment if one chose to enter the temple. No revelation, just a man dictating his new opinion, but it had direct repercussions on the lives of countless individuals from that time to now. Disobedience was an affront to the Lord when in reality it was an affront to a man’s opinion that was then followed by each succeeding man that was President of the Church of Jesus Christ. How is this not following the foolish traditions of our forefathers?

In my life I have always obeyed the WofW, but that obedience has grown hollow and meaningless. I do believe we gain something spiritual from forms of self-discipline, but this is not a sufficient reason to prevent entry into the temple for decades. The blessings of the temple are too great for a man’s opinion to play such a grand role.

What about the time frames set up in the USA between a secular marriage and a temple marriage? How many non-member parents and family members have been shut out of one of the happiest days they should of enjoyed in the life of the child? This is policy and it has nothing to do with salvation, revelation or anything else. It is simply some fellow in Happy Valley making up policies that harm rather than help and that poisons rather than heals. I have talked to countless individuals who harbor such bitter feelings over a silly policy developed by humans that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ.

What continues to go through my mind is the Doctrine & Covenants 121. In leadership trainings for years this section has been used to teach how we should and need to act. Of course, for those who abuse the priesthood, the refrain “amen to the priesthood of that man” is always heard. This is a damning refrain that those who create policy to compel the followers of Christ should fear; it terrifies me. How much I pray mercy on my miserable soul; I can only do the same for those who have served and continue to serve, but the condemnation is strong.

Okay, thank you for sharing. Very deep thoughts .

[The Grimace]

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Basically, you have described semi or inactive members. Why should we now assume that attendance will be higher?

I'm describing the same members that Bushman calls 'revived Latter-day Saints'.

[volgadon]

I'm describing the same members that Bushman calls 'revived Latter-day Saints'.

The kind of member you are describing does not fill chapels. That is the problem.

[DBMormon]

We are in the middle of these major changes, and so we are seeing many members struggle with their testimonies, which were based upon a flawless Church with infallible prophets. Now, we will have to deal with a Church that is learning to grow and adapt to new situations, with prophets and leaders who are just as human as you and me. As a Church, we'll adapt, and get better at all of this. Heck, my Gospel Doctrine teacher may be bringing in a divining rod to class next week, as she discusses Oliver Cowdery and his gift of Aaron! How's that for change in the Church?

People are not struggling becasue of the changes in the church, they are struggling because the changes are only now occuring. 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.

[DBMormon]

Bushman seems to advocate a more moderate church. I like that because I can picture in my mind an LDS church that is different than today's church. For instance, I think there will be Saints who are faithful, temple recommend holders, just as there are today. And, I think there will be Saints who chose not to hold a recommend, who choose not to pay a full tithe but to give what their conscience dictates; who choose not to follow the word of wisdom ascetically; who choose to say no to endless meetings and callings, rather choosing time for themselves.

And most of all, these Saints will be numerous, will fill chapels, and will be *accepted*, never judged.

Would you welcome this kind of change?

I would as long we all recognize that some things like a temple recommend can not have it's standard lowered simply because some of the group feel that way or demand it.

[The Grimace]

The kind of member you are describing does not fill chapels. That is the problem.

Re-read Bushman's post. Revived LDS tend to more cautious. They may just want to be congregants and make less of a commitment to service in the church. That is not hard to believe, is it?

And if that is not hard to believe, then it is not hard to believe that the church may change and find ways to accommodate revived LDS.

[The Grimace]

I would as long we all recognize that some things like a temple recommend can not have it's standard lowered simply because some of the group feel that way or demand it.

Absolutely. I'd welcome less emphasis on holding a temple recommend and less emphasis on temple marriage in exchange for maintaining the high standard needed to hold a recommend.

[volgadon]

Re-read Bushman's post. Revived LDS tend to more cautious. They may just want to be congregants and make less of a commitment to service in the church. That is not hard to believe, is it?

And if that is not hard to believe, then it is not hard to believe that the church may change and find ways to accommodate revived LDS.

Anyone like that already is welcome to attend as little as they like, is welcome to decline callings, too, yet the thing is, they rarely do attend. I've served in branch presidencies, so I can say tht your scenario is unlikely, to put it mildly.

[DBMormon]

I'm describing the same members that Bushman calls 'revived Latter-day Saints'.

I disagree, I am a revived LDS and I am fully believing, fully commited, and fully serving and loving it.

[DBMormon]

The kind of member you are describing does not fill chapels. That is the problem.

I disagree with this as well. In my ward are people like Grimace who show up every Sunday and while they doubt more then others they are there. To discount this group entirely as not helping to fill the chapel is silly. I wnat these folks there, involved, and participating as much as we can help them to do so.

[DBMormon]

Absolutely. I'd welcome less emphasis on holding a temple recommend and less emphasis on temple marriage in exchange for maintaining the high standard needed to hold a recommend.

Can't do that. The temple is a major reason for the high commitment of LDS. It is the crowning blessings of the gospel