Richard Bushman'S Description Of Faith Crisis

[The Grimace]

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.

Do you believe this is a one-way street? When you say 'Anyone like that already is welcome to attend', I say, sure, technically, you aren't putting up neon signs asking less-enthusiastic members to stay home. But let's face it, we all know Brother Bob, he never holds a calling. And Sister Sally, she never does her visiting teaching.

I'm talking about changing that kind of culture.

[DBMormon]

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.

wrong, I am exactly what Bushman describes and I don't fit your comments

[volgadon]

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.

Please look at his comments. I'm talking about the kind that specifically described as less-committed to attending meetings and so on.

[The Grimace]

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

OK, it may be the crowning blessing of the gospel, as you state. I'm not saying it must be tossed on the rubbish heap. I'm suggesting a less 'you must get to the temple and keep going going going!' approach and a more 'Hey, take your time, and it's OK if you feel it's not for you' approach.

What is wrong with that?

[volgadon]

wrong, I am exactly what Bushman describes and I don't fit your comments

See above.

[The Grimace]

Please look at his comments. I'm talking about the kind that specifically described as less-committed to attending meetings and so on.

Not weekly Sunday meetings....all the rest of the meetings.

[DBMormon]

Please look at his comments. I'm talking about the kind that specifically described as less-committed to attending meetings and so on.

we are all less committed at one time or another.... win them back don't brush them off

[DBMormon]

See above.

you didn't say who Grimace described but who Bushman described.... I am one of those he describes

[DBMormon]

I apoligize, I went back. You are speaking of only who Grimace is describing. I still wish to help 100's of grimaces come back and not brush them away or dismiss them as not a factor in adding to the numbers in the pews while they may be a small subset

Edited February 4, 2013 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

I apoligize, I went back. You are speaking of only who Grimace is describing. I still wish to help 100's of grimaces come back and not brush them away or dismiss them as not a factor in adding to the numbers in the pews while they may be a small subset

Wait a second...are you saying that if I came back, I wouldn't be a 'revived Saint' as Bushman describes? I mean, suppose I came back, but because of my experience with leaving, I am not willing to put my trust in the church the way I once did, I'm not willing to consecrate myself as I once did.

Aren't I *exactly* what Bushman is describing when he says:

"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."

[DBMormon]

Wait a second...are you saying that if I came back, I wouldn't be a 'revived Saint' as Bushman describes? I mean, suppose I came back, but because of my experience with leaving, I am not willing to put my trust in the church the way I once did, I'm not willing to consecrate myself as I once did.

Aren't I *exactly* what Bushman is describing when he says:

"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."

I think is who Volgodon is describing and I simply agree that he doesn't see you and Bushman describing the same person. Whether you are or not is not for me to say as I would have to have both you clarify your beliefs which is against board rules and I would have to have Bushman clarify his remarks.

What I would say is that I want you in the tent.

[The Grimace]

I think is who Volgodon is describing and I simply agree that he doesn't see you and Bushman describing the same person. Whether you are or not is not for me to say as I would have to have both you clarify your beliefs which is against board rules and I would have to have Bushman clarify his remarks.

What I would say is that I want you in the tent.

That's against board rules? Seems a bit odd - how would I ever progress this conversation further?

[The Grimace]

I think is who Volgodon is describing and I simply agree that he doesn't see you and Bushman describing the same person. Whether you are or not is not for me to say as I would have to have both you clarify your beliefs which is against board rules and I would have to have Bushman clarify his remarks.

What I would say is that I want you in the tent.

Would you change anything about the tent, assuming the tent is made of doctrine and culture?

PS. I *really* think the part of the Bushman quote you highlighted is a type-o given the surrounding context. I, for one, am *not* inclined to trust my old feelings.

[semlogo]

But, Kerry, that is always the case. We select our sources and the other side selects theirs and then we CHOOSE what we will believe, and the final choice because of the conflicting information has to be through the Holy Ghost.

I'm not convinced that belief is a choice.

[Calm]

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

When I teach the kids about it, it is more like "the Lord told him 'no' how many times and he still asked?!"

And if you looked at how the story was taught you would notice it is all about Joseph seeking forgiveness and needing to repent.

[Deborah]

I'm not convinced that belief is a choice.

Two people are presented with the BOM, with the same explanation of how it came about. One chooses to accept it and one chooses to reject it. It's always a choice. The fact that there may be things in one's background affecting the choice is another matter but one still chooses.

[DBMormon]

Two people are presented with the BOM, with the same explanation of how it came about. One chooses to accept it and one chooses to reject it. It's always a choice. The fact that there may be things in one's background affecting the choice is another matter but one still chooses.

Faith is a choice 100% agreed though I would add that our perception of information and experience may make that choice extremely difficult.

Edited February 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Glenn101]

Faith is a choice 100% agreed though I would add that our perception of information and experience may make that choice extremely difficult.

You are correct in that assessment. The more worldly knowledge and experience we obtain makes it more difficult to yield to the enticings of the spirit.

Glenn

[Freedom]

Actually revelation by the prophet is enacted through canon and/or proclamation.

So then your argument is that the leadership of the church, our prophet, has not received a revelation since the last official proclamation? Then he is not a prophet. I am not talking doctrine, I am talking revelation to guide the church. When the leaders of the church make a decision, they seek the mind and will of the lord and follow the spirit. This is revelation.

[Freedom]

CFR

Everything you have just said here is your own opinion.

Prophets

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/11/the-living-prophet-our-source-of-pure-doctrine

There are dozens of articles written that explain the prophet receives revelation on a daily basis. We do not canonize all revelation. Not all revelation is new doctrine.

[Cold Steel]

DELETE...DUPLICATE

Edited February 5, 2013 by Cold Steel

[Cold Steel]

Of course, the real answer is I was deceiving myself and God has nothing to do with it. The interpretation that the warming in the bosom is God is just shadow and silly. It isn't God. I get the same feeling when I read science, atheism, philosophy, etc. It is the excitement of learning, of getting more knowledge that was happening.

If you’ve been dishonest in defending the church, Kerry, then I can understand your feelings; however, I find your statement above troubling. If you are discounting the burning in one’s breast as mere emotion and not the Spirit of God, then are we to understand that Moroni was wrong and that the two apostles who marveled that their hearts burned within them were merely feeling the excitement of learning—of getting more knowledge from the Savior?

It sounds to me as though you’re putting more of an emphasis on facts and learning than appealing to the Spirit? If so, it may be time to give up the research and spend more time planting the seeds of faith. As latter-day Saints, we’re not on a journey to discover the truth; that’s something we should have done before entering the temple. One of my early professors loved berating the Christians and Jews in his class. He required us to read a number of anti-Christian books, as well as the writings of atheists, especially Camus’s Myth of Sisyphus. (Coincidentally, I later met a brilliant man who was a gardener and an alcoholic. It so happened that he had worked with Albert Camus during the war and had some old letters from him in French. What surprised me was that shortly before he died, he completely changed his mind about being an atheist and was thinking of studying for the Catholic priesthood. He was waiting for a train and ran into a friend who convinced him to let him drive him to his destination. Somewhere along the way, they had an automobile accident and Camus was killed.) Anyway, this professor convinced several Christians in my group to leave the faith, and he took several potshots at me, but I had just joined the church and had to depend on that burning feeling, so I don’t discount it.

God doesn't need any apologetics. Think about it for a sec. God needs help?

One of the things I learned from Hugh Nibley in the 70s was that although God may not need help, he depends on it. Consider all those kids we send out as missionaries. God could just announce the truth through angels if he chose to. And the Bible and Book of Mormon came to us through the instrumentality of prophets. As Nibley said, why does God need prophets, and books; why does he need angels? When Muslims ask us why God needs a Son, he said, all we need do is ask them these questions.

So does God need apologetics? I honestly don’t know. A lot of people have started out wanting to be the next Hugh Nibley, and have fallen by the wayside. But it’s true that Satan has never been as feverishly determined to stop this church, and our retention rates have the leadership worried. Many returned missionaries and converts are falling away, and enemies of the church are triumphantly declaring the Internet to be the death knell of Mormonism. Can apologetics stem the tide? Like I said, who knows? But if it makes a difference, it won’t be because God needs it. And as earlier brethren have said, the time will come when those who have not the staff of the Holy Spirit upon which to lean, will fall. I see the need for it, and FAIRLDS is doing an incredible job answering our critics. Will it convert those critics? Most likely not, but it might keep people from leaving.

Please, though, don’t discount the Spirit of God. We wouldn’t need apologetics if our people were living by the Spirit, and not trying to “strengthen their testimonies” by reading anti-Mormon tripe.

..

Edited February 5, 2013 by Cold Steel

[Glenn101]

Please, though, don’t discount the Spirit of God. We wouldn’t need apologetics if our people were living by the Spirit, and not trying to “strengthen their testimonies” by reading anti-Mormon tripe.

..

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. My spiritual experiences have been a whole lot more than a "burning in a bosom". They have been as real to me as the hot water that sprayed all over my right side many years ago, but much less painful. They have left me with a conviction that nothing short of absolute proof can shake.

I follow apologetics for the learning process. They provide a plausible counterpoint to the anti-mormon literature. As for science, it raises as many questions as it seems to answer, and even those answers have to be modified over time.

The "dark energy" discovery has thrown an un-Darwinian monkey wrench into to the origin of the univers theory and just maybe all of the implications have not been processed yet.

But, when we come right down to it and the question implied by the OP of this post we should follow the Lord's admonition to Peter:

Luke22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Glenn

Edited February 5, 2013 by Glenn101

[Storm Rider]

So then your argument is that the leadership of the church, our prophet, has not received a revelation since the last official proclamation? Then he is not a prophet. I am not talking doctrine, I am talking revelation to guide the church. When the leaders of the church make a decision, they seek the mind and will of the lord and follow the spirit. This is revelation.

PI don't think we disagree that the FP and the Q12 are inspired or that they do not receive inspiration when they speak to the saints or write books or interact in any way with the saints; I believe they are inspired. However, we may disagree on the term revelation. I see a difference between inspiration and revelation. Joseph Smith received a host revelations and wrote them down. Joseph was also inspired in innumerable ways to lead the saints and speak to the world at large. Inspiration may develop into revelation, but I see revelation as an actual event and of such import that it is recorded and entered into canon. It has always seemed strange that we teach that the canon is not closed and that the Lord still speaks to humanity through prophets, but our canon has remained essentially the same since the time of Joseph. It is one of those peculiarities that exists. I suspect that I place more import on the word revelation than you do, which is not important, but does add more clarity to the discussion. When leaders make decisions I would classify those decisions as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, hopefully, but just as in the local stakes and wards, some decisions are made out of desperation rather than inspiration. When I studied years ago the topics I have mentioned I was always perplexed that for such important decisions there was not a revelation where the Lord commanded his Church to do a certain thing. The priesthood and the WW both just sort of evolved; at one period they did not exist and the next they did with major consequences.

[volgadon]

we are all less committed at one time or another.... win them back don't brush them off

Who is saying brush them off? I'm certainly not, and if you think so you know utterly nothing about me, then.

I apoligize, I went back. You are speaking of only who Grimace is describing. I still wish to help 100's of grimaces come back and not brush them away or dismiss them as not a factor in adding to the numbers in the pews while they may be a small subset

I'm not condemning them at all. I would love for them to return, even if they hardly attend, or don't accept callings, or step outside the building for a quick smoke.