[churchistrue]

DarkJedi wrote:

Historical issues weren’t my faith crisis thing, for me it was more “doctrine” or dogma. However, I do recognize that things like polygamy are an issue for most in faith crisis and there is some crossover. Polygamy was not one of my issues but I understand why people have issues with it and agree with you churchistrue that it was/is not of God. It is however alive and well in the subtext of the church and people struggle with that.

I have fallen behind on the podcasts but I do see the value in them, particularly for those who struggle with many of the issues you have addressed – historicity (BoM, BoA and JST), polygamy, etc.

I’m sure like all of us you’re a busy guy and you have your stage on your website. At the same time I think you have a lot to offer people who ask the same kinds of questions here and I wish we heard more from you – even if it’s “I get your concerns and a few months ago I did a podcast on polygamy – you might find it beneficial.”

Thanks DarkJedi, I’ll try to hang around more often.

[churchistrue]

Anyone listening?

I’ve now done 8 of the 12 episodes. Last one was on Polygamy. Which was very tough subject, but a lot of people said it was helpful.

[churchistrue]

Roy wrote:

Thank you for giving of your time for this project. I am impressed at the organization and thoughtful way that you are using to approach this.

I like miniseries or trilogies. They have a well defined story arc. I dislike when a series goes on and on to morph into something very different from the original storyline just because the show wasn’t cancelled yet and so they had to shoehorn in yet another season. It appears to me that you have something similar on your hands. It is a series with a clear arc and direction. This can help your podcast from meandering and turning into something different then when you started.

I jotted down some notes while listening to part 1.

I like that this is an introduction of sorts and gives your personal and lived experience. Nobody can invalidate your experience.

You had stated I believe that Hugh Nibley was the father of apologists. I am not sure that is true. There seems to be others in the church that predate Nibley and certainly apologists in broader Christianity. Many of the early church fathers could be classified as apologists. I do imagine that Hugh Nibley is probably a well known church apologist and someone that many church members would be familiar with as a sort of personification of the work of FARMS and FAIR Mormon. I imagine that was your intent – to help people understand the role of an apologist.

Overall you had a great explanation of Apologists generally and I liked that you took note of apologists outside of our faith.

I liked the explanation of the “shelf” metaphor and how things that are not well explained or do not seem to make sense can build up over time.

I enjoyed the discussion of faith as a choice and how most psychologists would not frame beliefs as choices. I personally compare my own faith crisis to the stages of grief in that there were powerful forces operating at a level below my conscious mind compelling me forward. I can make choices during the grief process, for example – a positive choice is to not cut yourself off from your support system when going through grief. However, I cannot choose to stay in a particular stage of grief indefinitely or just skip forward to the more peaceful acceptance part. The choices made seem very limited and at times I was made to feel like I was a passenger on a rollercoaster going along for the ride. This was uncomfortable for me as I had based much of my identity of being “in control” of my destiny. I feel that the subconscious forces at play in the grief process and the faith crisis process are similar and that a faith crisis is a form of grief.

I liked the Richard Bushman quote about the picture of the young woman and the older woman. I imagine after seeing the older woman it must be so invalidating for people to try to convince you that the old woman isn’t there, or that to see her is to succumb to Satan’s tricks, or that you can just choose to not see her.

I liked that you own those places in your story where you take a leap of faith. That is rather personal but not necessarily something that everyone might feel comfortable with. Sometimes our journey allows us to take a leap of faith, sometimes our journey requires us to take a leap of faith, and sometimes our journey prohibits a leap of faith.

In listening to the story about Brother Peck, I feel sorry for him. I imagine that there are large pressures put upon him. It is one thing to say “I believe in evolution and I see no contradiction between revealed science and the gospel.” It is quite another thing to say “XYZ church leader was wrong in their statement about evolution or the age of the earth etc but I still believe in the gospel.” Many of us church members have some level of pressure that the church could apply towards us if something we said publicly was not well received. I understand that those on church payroll have a much greater level of pressure and tightrope walking. Bro. Bushman is one that I have seen be uncommonly forthright in his words. I imagine that he feels empowered to say some things whereas some others might not feel empowered.

I liked that you brought up that our current situation is not unique to Mormonism. Many religions are struggling with faith crises right now.

I loved the part about religion being possibly a human “bottom up” endeavor to draw closer unto and please God – rather than a top down imposed/revealed structure by God. This to me is perhaps the major paradigm change in your belief system and one that would be fairly antithetical to what is taught most Sundays at church.

Finally, there is much good in the concept of “redeeming the world” or making heaven on earth by collectively deciding to do good. I worry that this might frustrate me in my effort to StayLDS. There is so much good that we could be doing in the world and unfortunately much of our labors seem to be inwardly facing. We serve the church and we serve our fellow members. We do not seem to get outside of that internal circle as much as I might like.

I am excited to listen to the other parts.

Thanks, Roy! Great comments. Yes the “bottom up” thing is something even the other nuanced LDS are telling me is pushing things a little. But that’s how it most makes sense to me, and I think it can work.

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

Episode 1 (cont.)

[list]

[churchistrue]

nibbler, great thoughts. let me digest this and reply. thanks!

[churchistrue]

Sure, thanks. The first three episodes are out. I plan to do 12 total. I’ll gauge interest and post to introduce future episodes if the content fits. I think it will, because I’ve interacted with folks here before that seemed aligned with my way of thinking.

The main thing is that I am defending the church and advocating to stay for people who have gone through faith crisis to the point where they are considering or had considered or have already left the church. My material is not for people with a minor question like horses in the Book of Mormon but otherwise are not questioning. I don’t want to cause faith crisis for someone who is not already familiar with the issues. But I think most people here already are.

Episode 1: introduction of my personal journey through faith crisis and reconstruction. Topics: trust, what to do with previous spiritual confirmations, cognitive dissonance, faith vs belief, belief as a choice, apologetics, neoapologetics, metaphorical vs literal paradigms, fundamentalistic vs nuanced testimony.

Episode 2: Old Testament. Literal, 19th century view vs modern scholarly view. Gotcha issues for LDS. Evolution, Noah’s flood, prooftexting. Pete Enns: this is what it looks like when God lets his children tell the story. My testimony of the OT after faith deconstruction and reconstruction.

Episode 3: Book of Mormon Evidence. 19th century hemispheric model Native American origination story vs new church essay LGT and Mixing Populations, DNA Science, anachronisms like horses, steel, etc, ancient metal plates, Reformed Egyptian, Stephen Smoot’s critique of an inspired but non-historical view of the BOM. My view of the BOM as inspired and sacred scripture yet not being historical and viewing it as a revelation through Joseph Smith. My testimony of the BOM.

[churchistrue]

Hey guys, yes I took about three months off between blog posts recently. It wasn’t a planned sabbatical. During that time period, I was occasionally active posting on my facebook wall https://www.facebook.com/randall.bowen.315, on Reddit (Mormon forum usually), on Mormon Dialogue board, or in a few private fb groups. But combination of very busy work and some trips and maybe just a touch of burn out, slowed me down for a bit.

I’m very motivated to make an impact in the faith crisis world, and I still have a lot to accomplish, but I’m not immune to the issues in the list that Roy posted. I do consider myself an activist, but my motivations are not primary out of activism. And I don’t stay solely due to desire to be an activist and change things. That’s a small part of why I stay. I stay because I genuinely love the church and the experience I and my family have in it.

People have been telling me for a long time, I won’t last long term, or I’ll turn like John Dehlin or Bill Reel. My faith crisis was between 12 and 15 years ago. It’s been 12 years since my faith issues have been in a mostly steady state. I’ve been blogging actively for 4+ years now. I see myself most likely remaining active blogging and as an activist long term. There’s still a lot I want to accomplish. It’s possible burn out could set in and I could see myself backing away and handing the torch off to someone else. But I would never go anti.

Thanks for thinking of me.

[churchistrue]

Rebel wrote:

I would like ideas to help others in a FC and extend to them the olive branch of adopting new mormonism as defined on the church is true website . I am taking it upon myself to help others in the F C world to lessen the damage done when it comes full circle to them #!!!! Thanks.

Hi Rebel, I’m glad you’ve found comfort in some of my writings. But honestly, what you suggest sounds like a bad idea. lol. Even my wife and kids are smart enough not to take me too seriously.

[churchistrue]

Rebel wrote:

Hello: it has been a while . I am so glad to be here and in a good frame of mind. If any of you remember me I have gone through a faith crisis for about 3 years now. I have made peace with my faith and myself. I am not a member of the church anymore but I am planning on returning in soon. I still attend , my testimony is different but in many ways better than before. I am posting this in the hope of helping others as my faith crisis almost destroyed me ,I was very suicidal!! The main thing that helped me was the church is true website. I have adopted the non literal belief system and find myself close to the church again. Mormonism is a big tent for all !!!! My marriage also survived even though I did not think it would . I hope others will consider adopting a non literal belief before leaving the church. I wonder if the author of the web site has revealed his identity yet ? I know he is planning on writing a book and I will,be the first to purchase a copy ! God bless him in this holiday season and thank you for saving my life and faith !!

Rebel, I just noticed this comment. Thanks for the kind words. Really made my day. PM me here or email me through my site, if you’d like. btw: I am still not public in terms of my real identity. Like you, I spend a lot of time negotiating with my wife.

[churchistrue]

I used to be mad at people who believed in a God like this. It was offensive of me to believe in an impotent God that couldn’t do anything or an uncaring God that wouldn’t. How is a wimpy dad standing there helpless while his kid gets beat up or laying there drunk on the couch watching TV all day while his kids starve better than no father at all?

As a fundamentalistic believing Mormon, I believed in a hands-on God. A God who is talking to prophets, leading the church, inspiring GA’s to give missionary calls, inspiring stake patriarchs, inspiring bishops to make callings, inspiring each person to lead them in the right direction for their life and answers prayers.

Then, as I went through faith crisis and studying church history and scripture formation in closer detail, I came to believe that God couldn’t have been involved as closely as I thought. It just didn’t make sense to me that God would be very intimately involved in one instance and then in another instance just let his prophet stumble through making mistakes on his own. Apologists point to a hands-off God, dealing with human imperfection, to explain away weird stuff about BOM translation, Book of Abraham, polygamy stuff, etc. But if God isn’t hands-on in those moments, when is he ever hands-on? I finally came to believe that God is most likely never involved closely with the formation and management of religion. If he is involved at all, it is in maybe “nudging” a human in the right direction at certain points.

So, I’ve kind of evolved into a bit of a Mormon Deist position (http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/parable-of-christ-mormon-deism/), but i have to admit it’s out of weakness not preference. There are many times i wished i could believe in a more intimate, involved God. I prefer a God that works this way, but my faith falters me and I don’t see how that is possible when I look at how the world works. I wrote this to help me find some comfort in that kind of belief http://www.churchistrue.com/parable-of-iris-the-crying-toddler/.

[churchistrue]

This blog post is culmination of several years of thought on these issues.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/

Summary

1. The issues raised in CES Letter are not easy to deal with.

2. The more you study, the more it seems you’re opening cans of worms. The more you study, the more “messed up” LDS history and scripture seems to be. Then after even more study, the more “messed up” the Bible and even all religious history seems to be.

3. There are nuanced ways to look at these issues that can result in being able to retain intellectual integrity in a belief in the LDS church, but that belief structure might look a lot different than how it does for you now.

4. The result of all this will be moving from the little questions “were there horses in America or does the papyri match the Book of Abraham” to the big questions like “Does God exist? Does he have a plan for me? How directly involved is God in the religions in the world?” Though doubt and fear will creep in, this journey and struggle with those big questions can be very rich and fulfilling and lead to a very good place.

5. In the end, the decision you make to stay or leave the church should not be based on the “little questions” but in whether you find fulfillment and abundance in the weekly and daily engagement with Mormonism,worshiping God and serving and being served within the LDS Body of Christ and living the Christ centered LDS life.

[churchistrue]

Old-Timer wrote:

People only live lies if they are lying to people. Tact and caring concern are not dishonest.

I am not a literal believer about quite a few things, but I am fully active – even serving in public callings regularly. There is no lie or deception in that, since I never lie to anyone. I also don’t hide many of my heterodox beliefs; I just know how to frame them in non-threatening ways.

Think about this:

By saying you are living a lie, you are implying there is only one type of acceptable Mormon. If you reject that premise, even if there is cultural pressure to believe it, the issue of lying disappears completely. If you become at peace with who you are within the broader community, lying isn’t an issue. If you also learn to use “tribal language” to explain your beliefs, most people don’t care about the fact that you see some or many things differently.

Seriously, there are many thousands of active members who aren’t orthodox members but who aren’t living a lie.

Good response. I like that. I’m still figuring out how to speak and teach in church in an unorthodox style that doesn’t cause others to lose faith.

[churchistrue]

Always Thinking wrote:

Does it ever bother any of you who keep your faith crisis quiet that you’re kind of living a lie? Sometimes I feel like I’m so fake. My mom is my best friend besides my husband but I haven’t even shared my faith crisis with her because I know her and how she’ll worry about my soul. She also is very happy that me and my 15 year old sister are close, but sometimes I wonder if she would still be happy about it if she knew I was struggling. I try not to influence my sister negatively but it’s hard when we’re close so I’ve suggested music to her before with bad words and I’ve sometimes expressed my not so orthodox views with her and things like that. I try my best to keep most of it to myself though. But sometimes I worry that my parents will somehow find out that I struggled with the church farther down the road, like say if I leave the church or something, and my sister is struggling too, that they may blame me for influencing her. Since I was so TBM growing up, I worry that that’s what my parents expect is my influence on her right now but it’s not. So anyways, my questions are, do you ever feel like you’re living a lie? How do you get past it? And also, how do you know if you’re a bad influence, church wise, on younger siblings? Is it bad to not be a good church influence? I know i’m a good support system for her but I don’t think i’m the best church support and idk what to think about that.

Yes, it’s a big deal. It’s why some Mo’s leave the church immediately after faith crisis, even though they might otherwise enjoy the church and view it the way I and others here do, but they feel so inauthentic that they can’t do it. This is a big part of why I feel so passionate about blogging and publicizing my message, to create more space for alternative views and allow people to feel more authentic.

[churchistrue]

The most out of place thing related to that statement made by God about religion is that the Book of Mormon doctrine is essentially exactly the same as religion you could find in Joseph’s day. Makes God seem a little dramatic to use that strong of language and then give a new book of scripture that validates the doctrine of the day.

[churchistrue]

I love this. This sounds like my exact same approach. I learned it through Marcus Borg and use his words, calling it a sacramental paradigm. Religion is man’s collective wisdom and attempts to approach God. Not God’s instructions to man.

Where can I learn more about Mauss’ ideas on this?

[Author]

Posts