Richard Bushman'S Description Of Faith Crisis

[mathonihah]

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.

Wrong! You can never achieve success in your endeavours in the gospel framework by pretending what is unreasonable to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to have that kind of faith crisis for the mere exposure to that kind of information. It is a sign of weakness in faith or testimony, and that is never "reasonable" within the gospel framework.

[DBMormon]

Wrong! You can never achieve success in your endeavours in the gospel framework by pretending what is unreasonable to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to have that kind of faith crisis for the mere exposure to that kind of information. It is a sign of weakness in faith or testimony, and that is never "reasonable" within the gospel framework.

That's weird, that's the exact opposite of what the church is begginning to say

"There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with [this generation], tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."- Marlin Jensen

there is evidence on both sides - it is reasonable to come to either conclusion... that is why it is called faith. We are to act and not be acted upon. Many who come to the conclusion the church is not true got there sincerely

For one to have faith, there has to be at least two options that are reasonable.

[mathonihah]

That's weird, that's the exact opposite of what the church is begginning to say

there is evidence on both sides - it is reasonable to come to either conclusion... that is why it is called faith. We are to act and not be acted upon. Many who come to the conclusion the church is not true got there sincerely

For one to have faith, there has to be at least two options that are reasonable.

I don't see Marlin Jensen's quote contradicting what I said.

[DBMormon]

I don't see Marlin Jensen's quote contradicting what I said.

To fall one one's faith is to believe despite not having proof or overwhelming evidence

Your right.... you have it all figured out. You obviously know what fixes the issue and how it is to be understood. Terryl Givens, Bushman, Don Bradlley, John Lynch, Scott Gordon, Phillip Barlow.... who do these guys think they are.... good luck. The approach you have is the one the church used to employ.... the problem is getting worse not better. I am done responding to you. Have an excellent day!

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[mathonihah]

To fall one one's faith is to believe despite not having proof or overwhelming evidence

Your right.... you have it all figured out. You obviously know what fixes the issue and how it is to be understood. Terryl Givens, Bushman, Don Bradlley, John Lynch, Scott Gordon, Phillip Barlow.... who do these guys think they are.... good luck. The approach you have is the one the church used to employ.... the problem is getting worse not better. I am done responding to you. Have an excellent day!

LOL! You are a good laugh.

Do not turn threads into squabbles with other posters. Everyone get back on topic.

[DBMormon]

The following men and articles have a grandeur of experience dealing with faith crisis. We tend to get more from a subject if we hear what those who have swam in the pool. So for you enlightenment I present my favorite sources where one could delve to begin to grasp the issues.

Terryl Givens -

I know I am grateful for a propensity to doubt, because it gives me the capacity to freely believe. I hope you can find your way to feel the same. The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

My question is that some say the church not being true is using a double negative not reasonable. Any others want to take a stab at defending that position?

Richard Bushman states

Often church leaders, parents, and friends, do not understand the force of this alternate view. Not knowing how to respond, they react defensively. They are inclined to dismiss all the evidence as anti-Mormon or of the devil. Stop reading these things if they upset you so much, the inquirer is told. Or go back to the familiar formula: scriptures, prayer, church attendance.

The troubled person may have been doing all of these things sincerely, perhaps even desperately. He or she feels the world is falling apart. Everything these inquirers put their trust in starts to crumble. They want guidance more than ever in their lives, but they don’t seem to get it. The facts that have been presented to them challenge almost everything they believe. People affected in this way may indeed stop praying; they don’t trust the old methods because they feel betrayed by the old system. Frequently they are furious. On their missions they fervently taught people about Joseph Smith without knowing any of these negative facts. Were they taken advantage of? Was the Church trying to fool them for its own purposes?

It seems that really those who have gone through a faith crisis or have helped many others through theirs would have a grasp and be qualified or at least more likely apt to speak on what is at the root of these issues. Anyone disagree? and if so then explain why. I would love to know what qualifies one who has no experience with this issue to speak to the hearts of those who do and to the heart of the problem?

I would also suggest one read the following items as it would help all to have a proper background to ground ones statements

http://www.lifeongol...seph-smith.html

http://mormon-chroni...culties-of.html

http://whymormonslea...30Jan2012v4.pdf

http://www.sltrib.co...-faith.html.csp

http://mormonstories...hful-mormonism/

https://www.sunstone...s/155-32-41.pdf

http://terrylgivens....o-a-Doubter.pdf

Edited February 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

The following men and articles have a grandeur of experience dealing with faith crisis. We tend to get more from a subject if we hear what those who have swam in the pool. So for you enlightenment I present my favorite sources where one could delve to begin to grasp the issues.

Terryl Givens -

My question is that some say the church not being true is using a double negative not reasonable. Any others want to take a stab at defending that position?

Richard Bushman states

It seems that really those who have gone through a faith crisis or have helped many others through theirs would have a grasp and be qualified or at least more likely apt to speak on what is at the root of these issues. Anyone disagree? and if so then explain why. I would love to know what qualifies one who has no experience with this issue to speak to the hearts of those who do and to the heart of the problem?

I would also suggest one read the following items as it would help all to have a proper background to ground ones statements

http://www.lifeongol...seph-smith.html

http://mormon-chroni...culties-of.html

http://whymormonslea...30Jan2012v4.pdf

http://www.sltrib.co...-faith.html.csp

http://mormonstories...hful-mormonism/

https://www.sunstone...s/155-32-41.pdf

http://terrylgivens....o-a-Doubter.pdf

Keep on keepin' on, thanks DB for standing up for the loser people in faith crisis!

[DBMormon]

Keep on keepin' on, thanks DB for standing up for the loser people in faith crisis!

Tacenda, First Thank you. Also a point, I will be direct and so be it. Those who have never encountered a deep painful crisis of faith talk in ways that sound like bragging. "I am more faithful" or "they are less faithful", "the church not being true is an unreasonable argument" and "faithful members do not need apologetics", oh poppycock. Unfortunately, only when one has walked in the shoes of another can he truly speak to his position in life, his experiences, his adversity.

I have yet to see those who have opposed my thoughts, use evidence to show why their position is correct.

I take the position the church is true, but don't be fooled, I realize there is a considerable amount of evidence on both sides, I take my position on faith. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

When someone stated

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

I then asked to explain Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma ............................... ........ ....................... .......................................... I assume their is no explanation that reasonably makes this fit except to say people with a testimony of Christ from the spirit can decide the church has fallen away and can struggle with their faith

Edited February 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[mathonihah]

I take the position the church is true, but don't be fooled, I realize there is a considerable amount of evidence on both sides, ...

That is false. There is no “evidence” on the “other side”. The evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet is spiritual. It is borne of the Spirit. It is not temporal, carnal, sensual, or natural. The evidence that he was not a prophet (if you can call it such), is of the opposite kind. The two are not comparable nor compatible; they do not mix. You don't pit one against the other as though they were “equal”.

I then asked to explain Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma ............................... ........ ....................... .......................................... I assume their is no explanation that reasonably makes this fit except to say people with a testimony of Christ from the spirit can decide the church has fallen away and can struggle with their faith

The answer is simple. They were transgressors. They lost their faith and testimony because they transgressed, and the Spirit of the Lord left them. And the answer to a transgression is always repentance, whichever way you want to cut it.

[mathonihah]

My question is that some say the church not being true is using a double negative not reasonable. Any others want to take a stab at defending that position?

I would, if I knew what you were talking about.

Richard Bushman states

It seems that really those who have gone through a faith crisis or have helped many others through theirs would have a grasp and be qualified or at least more likely apt to speak on what is at the root of these issues. Anyone disagree? and if so then explain why. I would love to know what qualifies one who has no experience with this issue to speak to the hearts of those who do and to the heart of the problem?

Yes, I disagree, and I will be glad to tell you why. In the Church the Lord has established an ecclesiastical line of authority with the necessary priesthood keys to assist those in that situation by the spirit of inspiration and revelation; and that is the most effective way of assisting those in need of that kind of spiritual support. Bushman et al, however well intentioned, hold no priesthood keys or authority over anybody or anything, and are not entitled to the needed spiritual inspiration and revelation to assist those in that kind of situation.

I would also suggest one read the following items as it would help all to have a proper background to ground ones statements

Well that is very kind of you thank you very much, no need.

[DBMormon]

That is false. There is no “evidence” on the “other side”. The evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet is spiritual. It is borne of the Spirit. It is not temporal, carnal, sensual, or natural. The evidence that he was not a prophet (if you can call it such), is of the opposite kind. The two are not comparable nor compatible; they do not mix. You don't pit one against the other as though they were “equal”.

The answer is simple. They were transgressors. They lost their faith and testimony because they transgressed, and the Spirit of the Lord left them. And the answer to a transgression is always repentance, whichever way you want to cut it.

I am sorry, but that view is incorrect and obsolete. People who lose faith are not transgressors and you can't explain the three of them as sinners for losing their faith.... Let me know when you have read more.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Yes, I disagree, and I will be glad to tell you why. In the Church the Lord has established an ecclesiastical line of authority with the necessary priesthood keys to assist those in that situation by the spirit of inspiration and revelation; and that is the most effective way of assisting those in need of that kind of spiritual support. Bushman et al, however well intentioned, hold no priesthood keys or authority over anybody or anything, and are not entitled to the needed spiritual inspiration and revelation to assist those in that kind of situation.

While I agree they hold keys that doesn't make them experts. They are still flawed humans. If their mantle was enough why do Bishops receive counsel to send people with certain problems to those who can give professional help? Why did members of the twelve meet with Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens to discuss faith crisis and to receive their thoughts on the best way to handle it?

again, I completely disagree. your view of the church is mystical and unflawed while in reality humans including leaders in the church, are severely flawed. your position doesn't allow them to be so. They have all the answers, they need no outside help, why would an apostle ask another for insight, they have GOD. that view doesn't work in real application. why did moses get advice from his father in law?

Edited February 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[wenglund]

I think this kind of stuff needs to be drummed into us in a steady beat in all three church meetings for the next 50 years like the former pap and pablum has been. ONLY when the leadership decides to honestly enlighten us instead of dogmatize things to boring death with this "true doctrine" stance will they begin to have an enlightened people.

I love these kinds of dogmatic declarations of the "truth." Unwitting irony can be very enlightening.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mathonihah]

I am sorry, but that view is incorrect and obsolete. People who lose faith are not transgressors and you can't explain the three of them as sinners for losing their faith.... Let me know when you have read more.

Wrong! You had specifically mentioned "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma ..." The list of course is a lot longer. They were transgressors, according to the word of the Lord. Oliver Cowdery was condemned by the Lord for his disaffection and rebellion, and all the the great callings and blessings what was bestowed on him (called the Second Elder in the Church, and second in command to Joseph Smith), was taken from him, and was bestowed on Hyrum Smith (see D&C 124:95). Martin Harris was also condemned for his initial transgression, and called a "wicked man" (D&C 3:12; 10:1, 7), although he later repented and was forgiven. Emma was also warned in the D&C to accept the counsel of Joseph, or where Jesus was she could not come. She clearly failed in that regard. What her end will be I wouldn't like to guess. And the same is true of the rest of them. Sidney Rigdon, Thomas B. Marsh, and a whole lot more. They all transgressed, and lost the greater portions of their blessings, if not their exaltation.

[mathonihah]

While I agree they hold keys that doesn't make them experts. They are still flawed humans.

They are experts in spiritual things, not in medicine, or psychology, or finance, or law enforcement. If somebody has those kinds of problems, they are best referred to experts in those fields. But if their problems is sin, the bishop is the right person to deal with that.

If their mantle was enough why do Bishops receive counsel to send people with certain problems to those who can give professional help?

For the reasons explained above.

Why did members of the twelve meet with Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens to discuss faith crisis and to receive their thoughts on the best way to handle it?

I don't know why they did. They have opinions I suppose, and their opinions are worth taking into account. But has their consultation led to any policy decisions by the Church? I am not aware that it has. Their advice still is to go to your bishop if you have spiritual problems, not to Givens or Bushman,.

[Tacenda]

Wrong! You had specifically mentioned "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma ..." The list of course is a lot longer. They were transgressors, according to the word of the Lord. Oliver Cowdery was condemned by the Lord for his disaffection and rebellion, and all the the great callings and blessings what was bestowed on him (called the Second Elder in the Church, and second in command to Joseph Smith), was taken from him, and was bestowed on Hyrum Smith (see D&C 124:95). Martin Harris was also condemned for his initial transgression, and called a "wicked man" (D&C 3:12; 10:1, 7), although he later repented and was forgiven. Emma was also warned in the D&C to accept the counsel of Joseph, or where Jesus was she could not come. She clearly failed in that regard. What her end will be I wouldn't like to guess. And the same is true of the rest of them. Sidney Rigdon, Thomas B. Marsh, and a whole lot more. They all transgressed, and lost the greater portions of their blessings, if not their exaltation.

I guess I'm a transgressor according to you. Man I think the staunchest of the staunchest would disagree with you about the names listed in yours and DB's list. But you know what, you are right, we're all sinners including you.

[mathonihah]

I guess I'm a transgressor according to you. Man I think the staunchest of the staunchest would disagree with you about the names listed in yours and DB's list. But you know what, you are right, we're all sinners including you.

Yes, we are all sinners; but some of us repent, and some don't. You remember what Jesus said: "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)

[Questing Beast]

How does one repent of disbelief? Either you believe or you don't. "I believe Lord, help my unbelief." That is not a sinful position. Oliver Cowdery was offended by Joseph Smith's sexual practices. Emma Smith was offended by her husband's sexual practices. Martin Harris was a weak and sometimes foolish man and ran off at the mouth. None of those are sins to be repented of. Being offended by perceived sin in others is not a sin! It can be mistaken, but to call being offended a sin is a stretch of the meaning of the word, imho.

And nobody can tell if a person repents except God. Confession is public, behavior is observed by the public, and that is all we know about a person's "repentance". So making a list of "sinners" is surely one of the most futile things to do....

[mathonihah]

How does one repent of disbelief? Either you believe or you don't. "I believe Lord, help my unbelief." That is not a sinful position. Oliver Cowdery was offended by Joseph Smith's sexual practices. Emma Smith was offended by her husband's sexual practices. Martin Harris was a weak and sometimes foolish man and ran off at the mouth. None of those are sins to be repented of. Being offended by perceived sin in others is not a sin! It can be mistaken, but to call being offended a sin is a stretch of the meaning of the word, imho.

And nobody can tell if a person repents except God. Confession is public, behavior is observed by the public, and that is all we know about a person's "repentance". So making a list of "sinners" is surely one of the most futile things to do....

The Lord has openly condemned them as transgressors, and I go by what the Lord says.

And yes, unbelief is a sin; otherwise people could not be condemned for their unbelief.

Edited February 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[Questing Beast]

Says you. And not everything in the D&C is consistent, as a comparative reading with the Book of Commandments and first edition D&C will show. So is it the Lord that is inconsistent or his "editors"?...

[mathonihah]

Says you. And not everything in the D&C is consistent, as a comparative reading with the Book of Commandments and first edition D&C will show. So is it the Lord that is inconsistent or his "editors"?...

I don't know you very well; but judging by your posts you appear to be an unbeliever. I am a believer. So basically you are asking the wrong question of the wrong guy.

Do not make this personal.

[DBMormon]

I don't know why they did. They have opinions I suppose, and their opinions are worth taking into account. But has their consultation led to any policy decisions by the Church? I am not aware that it has. Their advice still is to go to your bishop if you have spiritual problems, not to Givens or Bushman,.

Most bishops are unequipped to handle a member in faith crisis

Elder Marlin Jensen stated - and please don't brush off Elder Jensen. You may want to talk the the church leaders and get their opinion of Elder Jensen and his role of assisting the twelve in helping those in crisis. I am personally familiar with this situation and with Elder Jensen and his having been assigned by the members of the 12 to help those in crisis on many occasions.

often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he'll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn't know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, 'Get in line and don't question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.' And that isn't helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what's brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled."

Edited February 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Wrong! You had specifically mentioned "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma ..." The list of course is a lot longer. They were transgressors, according to the word of the Lord. Oliver Cowdery was condemned by the Lord for his disaffection and rebellion, and all the the great callings and blessings what was bestowed on him (called the Second Elder in the Church, and second in command to Joseph Smith), was taken from him, and was bestowed on Hyrum Smith (see D&C 124:95). Martin Harris was also condemned for his initial transgression, and called a "wicked man" (D&C 3:12; 10:1, 7), although he later repented and was forgiven. Emma was also warned in the D&C to accept the counsel of Joseph, or where Jesus was she could not come. She clearly failed in that regard. What her end will be I wouldn't like to guess. And the same is true of the rest of them. Sidney Rigdon, Thomas B. Marsh, and a whole lot more. They all transgressed, and lost the greater portions of their blessings, if not their exaltation.

In your world only the point two percent who are true and faithful get the benefit of the doubt. Where do you get your positions from? Where in the church do you hear what you are saying taught. Show me where a church leader in the last 20 years has said Oliver Cowdery sinned and that caused his unbelief. Are you aware of the historical information which lends one to understand that the active Qof12 perhaps treated Oliver unfairly.

Do you see anyone running to side with your positions? There are a dozen people in this thread who have no problem telling me when I am wrong and yet none have come to stand by your side... your position never allows the active church member to be wrong, only the unbeliever, the inactive, the apostate. Life is way more shades of gray then your framework allows.

[Hestia]

Mathonihah, this is a warning. Read the Board Guidelines. Judging others is not allowed and calling people transgressors is not acceptable because they disagree with you.

[DBMormon]

I don't know why they did. They have opinions I suppose, and their opinions are worth taking into account. But has their consultation led to any policy decisions by the Church? I am not aware that it has. Their advice still is to go to your bishop if you have spiritual problems, not to Givens or Bushman,.

Actually I can assure you from first hand knowledge that these men have had an effect on policy changes that have happened, are happening, and will happen due to their sessions conversing with the top 15