Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
I thought it was universally known.I don’t think we can assume anything is “universally known,” especially here (we tend not to “know” much here
Not as universal as I thought. But I’m sure it’ll resurface.Quote:
Richard Bushman has talked about faith crisis with remarkable insight and clarity on what those in FC experience. This is an oldie but goodie (not to be confused with goodly, but it could be goodly) and is a favorite of mine:https://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html I don’t think this talk poo-poos your number three, but I don’t think it fully supports it either.
Quote:At this point, these questioners go off in various directions. Some give up on the Church entirely. They find another religion or, more likely these days, abandon religion altogether. Without their familiar Mormon God, they are not sure there is any God at all. They become atheist or agnostic. Some feel the restrictions they grew up with no longer apply. The strength has been drained out of tithing, the Word of Wisdom, and chastity. They partly welcome the new freedom of their agnostic condition. Now they can do anything they please without fear of breaking the old Mormon rules. The results may not be happy for them or their families.
Others piece together a morality and a spiritual attitude that stops them from declining morally, but they are not in an easy place. When they go to church, , they are not comfortable. Sunday School classes and Sacrament meeting talks about Joseph Smith and the early church no longer ring true. How can these people believe these “fairy tales,” the inquirers ask. Those who have absorbed doses of negative material live in two minds: their old church mind which now seems naive and credulous, and their new enlightened mind with its forbidden knowledge learned on the Internet and from critical books.
A bit later in the talk Bushman says:
Quote:Those are the words of someone who has lost belief in many of the fundamentals and is working out a new relationship to the Church. Other shaken individuals recover their belief in the basic principles and events but are never quite the same as before. Their knowledge, although no longer toxic, gives them a new perspective. They tend to be more philosophic and less dogmatic about all the stories they once enjoyed. Here are some of the characteristics of people who have passed through this ordeal but managed to revive most of their old beliefs.
1. They often say they learned the Prophet was human. They don’t expect him to be a model of perfect deportment as they once thought. He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or scolded his associates, or even have made business errors. They see his virtues and believe in his revelations but don’t expect perfection.
2. They also don’t believe he was led by revelation in every detail. They see him as learning gradually to be a prophet and having to feel his way at times like most Church members. In between the revelations, he was left to himself to work out the methods of complying with the Lord’s commandments. Sometimes he had to experiment until he found the right way.
3. These newly revived Latter-day Saints also develop a more philosophical attitude toward history. They come to see (like professional historians) that facts can have many interpretations. Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context along side other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.
4. Revived Latter-day Saints focus on the good things they derive from their faith–the community of believers, the comforts of the Holy Spirit, the orientation toward the large questions of life, contact with God, moral discipline, and many others. They don’t want to abandon these good things. Starting from that point of desired belief, they are willing to give Joseph Smith and the doctrine a favorable hearing. They may not be absolutely certain about every item, but they are inclined to see the good and the true in the Church.
(I think most of us who have “Stay[ed]LDS” can relate to this last quote.)
Thanks for the quote.I came across the quote in a video. If I encounter it again, I’ll post the exact quote. I thought it was universally known. I organized the quote into a model myself. DarkJedi wrote:
When posting something attributed to someone like this please include a link to the source. Is this something Bushman said in a recent presentation? Something in a book? On a podcast? Using the quote feature is also helpful.
Here’s a secondary quotation via Stephen Harper to Bushman saying the closer you get to original sources, the stronger JS becomes.
SamBee wrote:
Roy wrote:
DW and I met with a very nice JW couple for several months. Observations:1) JW beliefs are generally internally consistent. Looking from the inside there is nothing that seems off. They have a system of belief based on the bible with particular emphasis on some verses over others (just like other Christian churches of which I am familiar).
There are other issues. They tend to use their own translation which suits their doctrine and is inconsistent. Stylistically I find the NWT horrible – JWs have never has a knack for beautiful prose.
Do you find any bad translations in the NWT? From what I’ve seen, some of their important deviations from normal translations are actually warranted. Although they don’t encourage higher education, so they don’t have scholars like we do to articulate it, there is Biblical scholarship that confirms some of their unique beliefs.DarkJedi wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Well said, Roy. I should have pointed out that John and the foundation have not been involved here in a long time.As to the link and Ann Pfeffer, I’m in no position to judge or determine what happened there as far as any harassment or abuse. That would seem to be something for a court to decide. I will say that from what I read on her link I do not see evidence that John intended to take down the church from the beginning. Again, his podcast is much more antagonistic than his earlier endeavors, and perhaps the podcast has a goal to take down the church (I admit I got bored and didn’t read every word of the linked site to see that evidence). My own direct interaction with John was before the podcast (and before his excommunication) and was limited but overall positive and encouraging. What I got from the linked site was from the perspective of a disgruntled former employee. I will say that I agree with John’s detractors in that it does appear he is in the podcast mostly to for his own financial gain. We do live in a capitalist society and that’s to be expected I suppose.
Ok that’s fine. There are issues beyond legality, however. Kate Kelly and Kristy Money have accused him of sexist compensation practices, as well as attempt to silence his female accusers by calling them crazy.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MCLZ4vWcGEU
I’m not defending John or saying he’s a good guy. He is who he is, and if people have a problem with his business practices (or him personally) there’s really nothing I can do. The original question of this thread was whether people here follow John Dehlin or Bill Reel. I answered I that I do not. Judging by other responses there don’t seem to be many followers of either here.
Putting on my moderator hat: This is not the place to bash others or address others on other forums or sites. Such is expressly forbidden in the forum rules (
https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=852 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=852 Quote:This is not a forum to address posts or comments directly to people outside this forum. This is a place to discuss our feelings and beliefs in a supportive and uplifting manner, even when our comments and discussions are passionate and diverse and deeply heartfelt. It is FINE to explore concerns and disagreements with anything, but it is NOT fine to post messages addressed to anyone outside this forum. That simply is not our mission, and it can’t appear to be our mission.
As previously stated, John Dehlin does not participate here and has not for many years. If you have a problem with John take it up with him and address it through legal channels. Further statements about John’s character and/or business practices will result in this thread being locked.
Does that include self-professed public figures?DarkJedi wrote:
Well said, Roy. I should have pointed out that John and the foundation have not been involved here in a long time.As to the link and Ann Pfeffer, I’m in no position to judge or determine what happened there as far as any harassment or abuse. That would seem to be something for a court to decide. I will say that from what I read on her link I do not see evidence that John intended to take down the church from the beginning. Again, his podcast is much more antagonistic than his earlier endeavors, and perhaps the podcast has a goal to take down the church (I admit I got bored and didn’t read every word of the linked site to see that evidence). My own direct interaction with John was before the podcast (and before his excommunication) and was limited but overall positive and encouraging. What I got from the linked site was from the perspective of a disgruntled former employee. I will say that I agree with John’s detractors in that it does appear he is in the podcast mostly to for his own financial gain. We do live in a capitalist society and that’s to be expected I suppose.
Ok that’s fine. There are issues beyond legality, however. Kate Kelly and Kristy Money have accused him of sexist compensation practices, as well as attempt to silence his female accusers by calling them crazy.DarkJedi wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
Based on Ann Pfeffer’s (sp?) testimony, we now know Dehlin’s intent from the beginning was to take down the church.
It would be nice to have a link to Ann Pfeffer’s statement. I tried Googling but came up empty.
FWIW, in the beginning of John Dehlin’s faith crisis I do not believe it was his aim to “bring down the church.” He has undoubtedly become more antagonistic since his excommunication, but he was not always antagonistic. Also FWIW, John was the founder of this forum although he is not currently active here. This forum has helped many people StayLDS over the decades of its existence.
Old-Timer wrote:
Islam invented modern science in many ways. They were WAY ahead of the Catholic Church for a long time – doing brain surgeries when Catholics bragged about never washing their bodies.The Mongol conquests set back medicine dramatically.
Back to the rest of the discussion.
This would be a good discussion.The Catholic church also places bans on studying the human body. Islam had to be scientific to get Mecca’s direction and to observe holidays based on the moon’s state. They fell behind the West at one point.nibbler wrote:We should be, we started from a position where we were already standing on the shoulders of giants. Still, I think we have quite a way to go before we catch up to the maturity level of the Catholic church. Though like you say, we’ve come far relatively quickly.
We’re ahead of the Catholic church now.
