Richard Bushman'S Description Of Faith Crisis

[ControlFreak]

In response to volgodon/grimace discussion: I think there are potentially a lot more members that are less believing, yet "filling" the pews than people think. I also think it is unfair to assume people with heterodox beliefs or total lack of belief are necessarily less committed in a practical sense. I probably have the least faith in my ward, yet I show up for every move, every cleaning assignment, until recently served very actively as EQ pres (openly nom to bishop). That's obviously anecdotal evidence, but why assume "revived", less-believing our otherwise heterodox members wouldn't fill the pews? Especially if we could do it openly?

[volgadon]

In response to volgodon/grimace discussion: I think there are potentially a lot more members that are less believing, yet "filling" the pews than people think. I also think it is unfair to assume people with heterodox beliefs or total lack of belief are necessarily less committed in a practical sense. I probably have the least faith in my ward, yet I show up for every move, every cleaning assignment, until recently served very actively as EQ pres (openly nom to bishop). That's obviously anecdotal evidence, but why assume "revived", less-believing our otherwise heterodox members wouldn't fill the pews? Especially if we could do it openly?

Grimace has since clarified that he didn't mean Sunday attendence when he was talking about peope not really wanting to attend meetings.

[DBMormon]

I also think we are missing part of Bushman dialogue. He describes a multitude of directions those in faith crisis end up but he seems to be saying if I understand him correctly that the "Revived Mormon" is the one who reconstructs his faith in a way that he has faith and believes the church is what it claims. He seems to separate the revived mormon from those who still attend but have not a belief that the church is the "Only True & Living" church.

Edited February 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Cold Steel]

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. My spiritual experiences have been a whole lot more than a "burning in a bosom"....

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. Apologetics is for people who are still searching; who are still on the journey to truth. Once the Spirit testifies to our spirits, one can go the rest of one's life without it. Apologetics, to me, has been useful in missionary work, where people hear the incredible story of the first vision or the visit of Moroni, and they take to the Internet. As is too often the case, they read a litany of criticisms and construct an intellectual brick wall. Members of the church can then choose to direct these people to read and pray and depend only on the Spirit of God and move on, or they can visit FAIRLDS, read up on the issue and then, if appropriate, print out a credible reply.

When I do missionary work, I let people bring up three major objections. I research those objections, get answers and reason that if I can answer three critical issues for someone, and if I've let them pick them, then they've got to open their minds a bit for the reception of the Holy Spirit.

For years I was bullied by people who used to stick 1 Nephi in my nose and challenge me on the "river of water" in Arabia, as well as Bountiful, a place that even appeared to me to be a bit fanciful. But I did the spiritual "leap of faith," and many people thought me a fool. And in 1984, I awoke one morning to an article in the paper about an alleged "Salamander Letter." I remember going numb, but again I closed my eyes and leaped! Even when family members (who also converted) asked me about it, I asked them if it sounded like anything else that had ever been produced in or by the church. It caused me more anxiety than I let on, but they were looking up to me as the one who got them into this mess, and I wasn't going to crumble before them.

Then, not all that long ago, the DNA controversy hit and at the time I believed in the "one Cumorah" notion. I recall seeing a young man who was clearly an AmerIndian on television who was bitterly reproaching the church for telling him for years that he was a descendant of Laman and/or Lemuel and how proud of that heritage he'd been. Now, he said, he and other North-North American tribes had evidence that they were, in fact, descended primarily from Asians. He was so angry that he left the church over it. In each of the above cases, apologetics proved invaluable to the church and actually turned the tables on our critics. But there were casualties, and I doubt that AmerIndian fellow ever returned, and perhaps his family didn't, either.

Based on the above, I learned important lessons though patience. I, too, am fascinated by quantum physics and the incredible revelations of man. But I'm not going to blow my religion on these things. The vast knowledge that man is acquiring is such that it makes any scientific text book on the market obsolete within five years. And how many times have we read that this or that new discovery means that everything we thought we knew about a given topic must be "reinterpreted." As a result, I trust in the Lord when he says he will reveal all things when he comes to rule in the Millennium. That means all those niggling little questions about relativity, dinosaurs, UFOs, Bigfoot, dark energy, quantum physics, parallel universes (which presently posits that in some universes Joseph Smith is a true prophet, while in others he'll be a money grubbing imposter or even, in some cases, a fallen prophet...or that in some universes, evil is the predominating force that holds sway) and so forth.

Finally, as to the burning in the bosom, that is the driving force in what I believe. I remember the first day I experienced it, and it's vastly different from the electrifying experience I get when reading Douglas MacArthur's 1962 "Duty, Honor, Country" speech. I get a lump in my throat every time I read it, but not a burning in the bosom. Anyone who can't tell the difference has either never received it or the testimony has been taken from them.

At least them's my views!

.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cold Steel

[DBMormon]

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.

I believe Elder Neal Maxwell, Marlin Jensen, Terryl Givens, Dan Peterson, Brant Gardner, Richard Bushman among 100's of others would disagree with you though I have no way of knowing for certain unless Dan or Brant wants to speak up here.

Also for those struggling, that view would be offensive to say anyone who needs apologetics is unfaithful

Edited February 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

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.

"Needs".....for personal use, perhaps not "needs" but it can certainly add depth and breadth to a testimony already well established.

However, FAIR receives a number of questions from those who claim to be faithful members--and I have no reason to doubt them--in need of apologetics because of near and dear who are troubled with doubts, so I would say that faithful members may need apologetics in order to help others even if they don't need them to help themselves to grow in the faith, though apologetics can be beneficial for that as well....just not necessary as it may be for those currently doubting.

[Calm]

Also for those struggling, that view would be offensive to say anyone who needs apologetics is unfaithful

I assumed he was using "faithful" to mean "full of faith" and wasn't intending to set up the dichotomy faithful vs. unfaithful but of faithful vs. less faithful where having doubts implies not having full faith which is a reasonable implication, one that I assume most who have doubts would agree with.

Though I would agree that even if one defines "faithful" in an extremely limited way, that it is too easy for others to interpret it as a criticism that those who have doubts are unfaithful, intentionally rejecting faith which is problematic and offensive to those who are sincerely struggling or cares for those sincerely struggling.

[Cold Steel]

"Needs".....for personal use, perhaps not "needs" but it can certainly add depth and breadth to a testimony already well established. However, FAIR receives a number of questions from those who claim to be faithful members--and I have no reason to doubt them--in need of apologetics because of near and dear who are troubled with doubts, so I would say that faithful members may need apologetics in order to help others even if they don't need them to help themselves to grow in the faith, though apologetics can be beneficial for that as well....just not necessary as it may be for those currently doubting.

I certainly don't mean to disparage any of our great apologists, nor do I disparage their research and writings, which I love to read and watch on YouTube. Kerry Shirts' comments already have been noticed and posted to an anti-Jehovah's Witness board by people who believe he is presently "thinking his way out of the Mormon church." I don't think he's doing that...I hope he's not...I read him more as knocking the methodology of apologetics. But more to the point, I believe apologetics has been an invaluable tool for the believer and non-believer; however, it doesn't work well with the critics. If a car's out of gas, charging the battery will do nothing. Many investigators have the gasoline, but they lack the charge necessary to get them running.

What I said regarding believers and apologetics is that for a person's own salvation, apologetics isn't necessary for them to know the truth. Jesus' metaphor is that if you plant the seeds of faith, you reap faith. If you sow the seeds of doubt, you reap doubt. I've been criticized by some for saying that if anti-Mormon or anti-Christian literature makes you feel bad or fills you with doubt, get as far away from it as possible and stick to faith promoting materials. Like I said, you shouldn't be on a journey to truth; you should have arrived at that destination. Brigham Young was once troubled that with so many of faith leaving the church in Kirtland that he, too, might fall. When he told Joseph his concern, the prophet told him that before the Lord would allow that to happen, that he would take him unto himself. Apparently you reach a point where you've proven yourself to God, and after that no more testing is needed. Brigham Young had reached that point, but many of us haven't. Brigham never faltered and he never needed apologetics, nor did the apostle Peter, nor Abraham. But Peter certainly was not above gaining knowledge to debate the critics of his day. And Joseph Smith also encouraged intellectual pursuits that would prove the Book of Mormon and his own visionary experiences. On the other hand, we've seen that the Lord will let evidence come forth in abundance, but not absolute proof. Why not proof? Because it would put men under condemnation for rejecting the gospel, and many would still reject it for whatever reason.

.

[Calm]

I agree that there is a certain point in many (not all and hopefully not a majority) critics' development where apologetics are not useful as they are interpreted as "twisting" or "mental gymnastics" or such things. Once someone no longer believes such efforts are sincere and useful ways at attempting to explore truth and instead think of them as efforts to shore up a faith system no matter what....well, any attempt will more than likely just be interpreted in such a way as to 'self fulfill a prophecy'.

[Tacenda]

I agree that there is a certain point in many (not all and hopefully not a majority) critics' development where apologetics are not useful as they are interpreted as "twisting" or "mental gymnastics" or such things. Once someone no longer believes such efforts are sincere and useful ways at attempting to explore truth and instead think of them as efforts to shore up a faith system no matter what....well, any attempt will more than likely just be interpreted in such a way as to 'self fulfill a prophecy'.

I appreciate how you look at both sides of the coin and walk in others shoes, you're a very good person to do that. Edited February 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I appreciate how you look at both sides of the coin and walk in others shoes, you're a very good person to do that.

I have a lot of time on my hands to 'observe' people so I might as well make use of it.

[mathonihah]

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.

Prophets are permitted to make policy decisions based on their best understanding of the situation, without seeking a revelation on every issue. Here is an example:

"Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment,

not of the Lord, but of himself,

that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them," (D&C 74:5)

I don't see the Lord condemning Paul for making that policy decision based on his own judgement, without obtaining a revelation from the Lord.

A different situation exists when Church leaders have attempted to address important doctrinal issues that have come before the Church at various times in its history, without inquiring and obtaining revelation from the Lord. They thought they knew the answer when in fact they didn't, and have issued doctrinal statements over the signatures of the First Presidency which were in fact doctrinally unsound, and were somebody's opinion and not true revelations as one would expect them to be.

[Cold Steel]

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

Can you give me an example where this would be the case?

During the Vietnam era, I was determined not to go; meanwhile, the church simply iterated its longtime position that we believe in obeying the law of the land. And try though I might, I didn’t see obeying the call of the draft as obeying the law of the land, which is the Constitution. I determined that I wouldn’t go for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that since Congress had declared no war, and since I saw no national interest in supporting the war, I determined that I wasn’t going to go through boot camp, then fly all the way to Vietnam, only to let my DNA get spread over a rice paddy the size of a baseball field. I also didn’t like the way the generals and politicians were running the war, fighting in the south and not the north. I’m no coward, but the only country I’m willing to die for is my own. Yet I didn’t see myself as not obeying the counsel of the Church.

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.

With all due respect, poppycock! If people have a testimony of the gospel given of the Holy Spirit, why should they struggle, period? I love apologetics because, one, it helps me with missionary work and, two, I find the historical worth to be enormous. In my opinion, there’s too much emphasis on what the church is doing for its members and not vice versa. I think we’re put on this earth to help others; to reach down and pull up. And once we obtain the Spirit, the counsel is to keep it and help others to obtain it. As I said before, I think too many people in the church are on a continuing journey to truth. I’ve been berated by fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christians for being close minded, of not being willing to consider that Joseph Smith might not be a prophet.

Of course, they’re right. At one time I was open minded as to which church I should join. I never doubted that Jesus was the Christ, nor did I (or my family) ever buy into the Trinity doctrine. But once I read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, I realized that LDS doctrine and prophecies were far too deep and interconnected with biblical scriptures to be of human origin.

Prophets are permitted to make policy decisions based on their best understanding of the situation, without seeking a revelation on every issue.

Yes, that's why the apostles tend not only to be prophets, but administrators. When I read the revelations of Orson Hyde and saw that he was sent halfway around the world to offer a prayer that took maybe a half hour, and Parley P. Pratt, who marched through snow and ice trying to gnaw on a frozen piece of stale bread so he could fulfill a mission to a place he'd been shown to visit, I realized these men had to be full of grit. But they also headed meetings, established churches, ordained bishops and elders and collected paperwork for the church records. This is what they did anciently, and yet we're told that that we don't need them in our day and age. If someone needs a pastor or preacher, better to run a few lines in the want ads and make sure they graduated from a good theological school!

I don't see the Lord condemning Paul for making that policy decision based on his own judgement, without obtaining a revelation from the Lord.

Good example. Paul made a few comments that were clearly his own views, yet some Christian denominations take them as commandments.

A different situation exists when Church leaders have attempted to address important doctrinal issues that have come before the Church at various times in its history, without inquiring and obtaining revelation from the Lord. They thought they knew the answer when in fact they didn't, and have issued doctrinal statements over the signatures of the First Presidency which were in fact doctrinally unsound, and were somebody's opinion and not true revelations as one would expect them to be.

Such as??

.

[mathonihah]

Yes, that's why the apostles tend not only to be prophets, but administrators....

To clarify, whereas I regard the Word of Wisdom issue raised by StormRider to be a purely policy decision (and in my opinion a justifiable one, though opinion on that may vary, and I am willing to consider alternative points of view), the priesthood issue is more to do with doctrine than policy, and the potential for error in it is greater.

Such as??

The answer is all of them! A number of official statements have been made by the First Presidency during the past century or so that were issued specifically in response to a doctrinal challenge, issue, or controversy that had arisen within, and sometimes outside the Church. Latter-day Saints generally consider these to be revelations, and rightly so. They expect that a doctrinal statement solemnly declared over the signatures of the First Presidency (and sometimes the Twelve) to have been a revelation; but unfortunately they are not, and consequently contain doctrinal errors. That is not because the power to obtain the revelation wasn't there, but because they just didn't—either because they thought they already knew the answer, or worse still, because they thought they didn't need to know. Joseph Smith was smart enough to know when he didn't know something, and therefore should inquire of the Lord. His successors have not always been as smart.

Now I suppose you want me to discuss in detail the doctrinal issues concerned, which I am not going to, because it would be divisive. If you are smart enough to figure them out for yourself, good luck to you, otherwise I will let sleeping dogs lie.

[DBMormon]

DBMormon, on 04 February 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

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

Can you give me an example where this would be the case?

As an apostle (prophet seer and revelator) Elder McConkie said things about those of another race that are disparaging. Elder Mark E Peterson said things that are disparaging about another race as well. They said them in a format of teaching and declaring their thoughts. For those who received revelation that they were wrong, were right. Eventually the Lord choose to correct their wrong teachings.

The gentiles wanted the Priesthood, Peter refused, Paul and other disagreed. Peter eventually received a revelation that they were right and he was wrong.

Moses' father-n-law receiving revelation for him that he should have men assist him with the lesser matters...(pretty profound when you consider the method he sugggested)

There are others.

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

DBMormon, on 04 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

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.

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

Which shows you have no grasp of faith crisis, why it happens, what is the best approach to deal with it. One can have a testimony of the gospel through the holy ghost, but having as part of their testimony the false teachings of some leaders who have written false teachings in books and said them in their talks, who have understood the church through the filters of those who taught them and seemed to teach them truth in their wards but instead taught gospel speculation as truth. One has built a incorrect foundation, but one that still included the spirit witnessing to the truthful part. Once one has that house of cards crash and also realizes that people of all faiths have spiritual experiences, That for some brings the house down...... and your comments minimalize their crisis and makes them feel like your are saying "shame on you, you never had a testimony to begin with"

This approach fails on multiple levels and besides isn't true. The only exception is if an angel or audible voice were to tell the person that disregard the supposed errors you have found this is the true church.... then and only then will I say "

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

And even that isn't sufficient in some cases

So emma wasn't converted? Was Oliver Cowdery converted? How about David Whitmer?

Your statements are blanket and they don't fit a giant number of cases of those who lose their testimonies that the church is the one true church

Help me reconcile your statement with these three individuals above.

Did they not have testimonies from the spirit? And if they did why did all three for long spaces of time no longer believe the church was the one with authority (only one returned). And any rational explanation you give, why wouldn't they apply to any other person who struggles with their testimony of the church?

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

Moses' father

Father in law, I believe

[DBMormon]

Father in law, I believe

correct

[mathonihah]

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.

[DBMormon]

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.

Bushman says he talks to 2-3 people a week who contact him regarding their crisis. at least one apostle has sat down with Bro. Bushman to discuss with him and others (Terryl Givens ect..) how to understand faith crisis and discuss ways to better handle it.

The link explains he was at a conference with others to devise a better plan to understand and help another's faith crisis.... all the evidence says this is something a whole bunch deal with and Bro. Bushman is one of the appointed experts on it. Also at least a dozen folks have stated and you can add me to it, that this describes faith crisis perfectly for those who get hung up on historical/doctrinal issues. you may also want to check out the "openstories survey" which will also show Bushman is not alone here nor even a small handful.

This is a considerable sized subset of the church membership - my guess 5-10% of actives and slightly greater among those no longer attending... enough to pay attention to. My evidence is knowing my ward and talking to other bishops in my stake. Elder Marlin Jensen also indicates as such (greatest apostacy since kirtland). Whether these crisis are based on false assumptions and expectations is debatable but I find most other aspects of their crisis to be real and sincere and not brushed away or explained in the ways some here are decreeing. They simply can not be excused as the person wasn't converted, they want to sin, they are too small a number to impact anything, it's their fault, ect.....

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[mathonihah]

Bushman says he talks to 2-3 people a week who contact him regarding their crisis. at least one apostle has sat down with Bro. Bushman to discuss with him and others (Terryl Givens ect..) how to understand faith crisis and discuss ways to better handle it.

The link explains he was at a conference with others to devise a better plan to understand and help another's faith crisis.... all the evidence says this is something a whole bunch deal with and Bro. Bushman is one of the appointed experts on it. Also at least a dozen folks have stated and you can add me to it, that this describes faith crisis perfectly for those who get hung up on historical/doctrinal issues. you may also want to check out the "openstories survey" which will also show Bushman is not alone here nor even a small handful.

This is a considerable sized subset of the church membership - my guess 5-10% of actives and slightly greater among those no longer attending... enough to pay attention to. My evidence is knowing my ward and talking to other bishops in my stake. Elder Marlin Jensen also indicates as such (greatest apostacy since kirtland). Whether these crisis are based on false assumptions and expectations is debatable but I find most other aspects of their crisis to be real and sincere and not brushed away or explained in the ways some here are decreeing. They simply can not be excused as the person wasn't converted, they want to sin, they are too small a number to impact anything, it's their fault, ect.....

I agree that those who have a faith crisis deserve our sympathy, and should be helped; but I don't agree that becoming exposed to that kind of information must necessarily lead to a faith crisis; or that if it doesn't, it means that they are somehow intellectually inferior to that who do. I think that the best way to help those who experience such faith crises is to examine and find out what it is that strengthens others not to experience a faith crisis when exposed to that kind of information; and then to help those others who do experience a faith crisis to acquire the same spiritual strength.

[DBMormon]

Does that mean that there is something wrong with me? I don't think so! It is more likely the other way round.

Wow... sorry but you just been reported.... this is hateful. are you even aware of what all has been said by the church and it's leaders over the last 16 months.....

Elder Jensen said unfortunately there are members and even Bishops who respond by pointing a finger at the struggler and this is inappropriate.

[DBMormon]

I agree that those who have a faith crisis deserve our sympathy, and should be helped; but I don't agree that becoming exposed to that kind of information must necessarily lead to a faith crisis; or that if it doesn't, it means that they are somehow intellectually inferior to that who do. I think that the best way to help those who experience such faith crises is to examine and find out what it is that strengthens others not to experience a faith crisis when exposed to that kind of information; and then to help those others who do experience a faith crisis to acquire the same spiritual strength.

CFR - where did I say all who encounter it have a faith crisis?

[mathonihah]

Wow... sorry but you just been reported.... this is hateful. are you even aware of what all has been said by the church and it's leaders over the last 16 months.....

Elder Jensen said unfortunately there are members and even Bishops who respond by pointing a finger at the struggler and this is inappropriate.

Okay, you had not answer to my last post, so you are now trying to find another line of attack! Good luck with that.

[DBMormon]

I agree that those who have a faith crisis deserve our sympathy, and should be helped; but I don't agree that becoming exposed to that kind of information must necessarily lead to a faith crisis; or that if it doesn't, it means that they are somehow intellectually inferior to that who do. I think that the best way to help those who experience such faith crises is to examine and find out what it is that strengthens others not to experience a faith crisis when exposed to that kind of information; and then to help those others who do experience a faith crisis to acquire the same spiritual strength.

First someone has to listen to them, hear them out, acknowledge the way they see things as reasonable then after trust is built, then maybe you show them a better way to see it.... but you can't do what your proposing... your doing it backwards.... it fails almost every time.

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon