Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across this article this morning and found it interesting on many levels. Also the part about asking lots of questions reminds me much of myself when it comes to holy books and what people believe along these lines.
"The question is: When did I feel that I needed to think about the world to understand it? That started in high school, when I would ponder and write in my journal and try to figure things out. It was just thinking about the meaning of life and how you could be a good person and what was important, why people developed different kinds of social ranks. ...
“I’m not sure that I believe in God.” And he said, “That’s all right.”
I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that. But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away.
How there is all variety of what scripture to consider, what people believe. How can anyone NOT have lots of questions? What to conclude? What is the truth? All depends on who you ask of course...
How there is all variety of what scripture to consider, what people believe. How can anyone NOT have lots of questions? What to conclude? What is the truth? All depends on who you ask of course...
What do you believe and why?
No data to the link. How did you find it?
Sometimes you need to have some answers before you ask the questions.
I really, really, really liked the article. It was entitled, "What you may not know about Mormon historian, Richard Bushman." Well, I'd say the vast majority of people who are not Mormons themselves have never even heard of Bushman. Within non-LDS academic circles, however, he is well-known and respected. His book, "Rough Stone Rolling" was a biography of Joseph Smith -- and it was NOT whitewashed. I find him kind of difficult to read myself, but I did enjoy this interview with him and found that I have a lot in common with him. For example, when asked, "How do you define truth?" he said the following:
We have a very confined notion of truth that’s really defined for us by science, which requires evidence or proof to be accepted. In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life. And, for me, that’s always been more important. I’ve always valued the truth that led me to the right kind of life, the one which makes me a good father and husband and prompts me to help people be good. With that kind of truth, I’m very much willing to say, I know the gospel is true.
I can totally relate to that statement and totally agree with it.
I was also very pleased to hear his statements on Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor. It was Brigham, not Joseph, who instituted the priesthood ban on men of African descent. His comments on that subject were these:
My heart goes out to Brigham Young right now. He’s becoming the fall guy [for the church’s former racist priesthood-temple ban.] We really need someone to go through his biography and treat the latter half of his life empathetically. But on race, he really was off base. There seemed to be not just a sad acknowledgment of the limitations of African Americans in the church, but sort of a vindictive quality to him. And he spoke with some force. We just have to say he was wrong. But it’s not our job to condemn him or to say, therefore, we’re canceling him, that he’s worthless. We have to keep it all in perspective.... Brigham did make a mistake on race, and saying he didn’t just gets us in more trouble. It’s better to say they do make mistakes like anyone else.
I also liked how he talked about the balancing act Mormons seem to be caught in the middle of right now -- which was basically the topic of the thread I started a couple of weeks ago on "the most American religion. He uses the word, "cosmopolitanism" to refer to it, and says this:
We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism. We’ll keep trying to find words that will allow us to express what we believe in a way that’s acceptable. We want to sound like we’re reasonable souls. I see the merits of that. But that relieves us of the responsibility of defending the things that are uniquely ours — like angels and gold plates — that should be protected.
And I'm certainly glad that I wasn't the one who started this thread. People tend to be more suspicious of a thread on Mormonism if it was a Mormon who started it.
I really, really, really liked the article. It was entitled, "What you may not know about Mormon historian, Richard Bushman." Well, I'd say the vast majority of people who are not Mormons themselves have never even heard of Bushman. Within non-LDS academic circles, however, he is well-known and respected. His book, "Rough Stone Rolling" was a biography of Joseph Smith -- and it was NOT whitewashed. I find him kind of difficult to read myself, but I did enjoy this interview with him and found that I have a lot in common with him. For example, when asked, "How do you define truth?" he said the following:
We have a very confined notion of truth that’s really defined for us by science, which requires evidence or proof to be accepted. In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life. And, for me, that’s always been more important. I’ve always valued the truth that led me to the right kind of life, the one which makes me a good father and husband and prompts me to help people be good. With that kind of truth, I’m very much willing to say, I know the gospel is true.
I can totally relate to that statement and totally agree with it.
I was also very pleased to hear his statements on Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor. It was Brigham, not Joseph, who instituted the priesthood ban on men of African descent. His comments on that subject were these:
My heart goes out to Brigham Young right now. He’s becoming the fall guy [for the church’s former racist priesthood-temple ban.] We really need someone to go through his biography and treat the latter half of his life empathetically. But on race, he really was off base. There seemed to be not just a sad acknowledgment of the limitations of African Americans in the church, but sort of a vindictive quality to him. And he spoke with some force. We just have to say he was wrong. But it’s not our job to condemn him or to say, therefore, we’re canceling him, that he’s worthless. We have to keep it all in perspective.... Brigham did make a mistake on race, and saying he didn’t just gets us in more trouble. It’s better to say they do make mistakes like anyone else.
I also liked how he talked about the balancing act Mormons seem to be caught in the middle of right now -- which was basically the topic of the thread I started a couple of weeks ago on "the most American religion. He uses the word, "cosmopolitanism" to refer to it, and says this:
We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism. We’ll keep trying to find words that will allow us to express what we believe in a way that’s acceptable. We want to sound like we’re reasonable souls. I see the merits of that. But that relieves us of the responsibility of defending the things that are uniquely ours — like angels and gold plates — that should be protected.
And I'm certainly glad that I wasn't the one who started this thread. People tend to be more suspicious of a thread on Mormonism if it was a Mormon who started it.
Meh, but you are not your average Mormon. Start all the threads you want. Always enjoy your commentary. As an atheist.
I really, really, really liked the article. It was entitled, "What you may not know about Mormon historian, Richard Bushman." Well, I'd say the vast majority of people who are not Mormons themselves have never even heard of Bushman. Within non-LDS academic circles, however, he is well-known and respected. His book, "Rough Stone Rolling" was a biography of Joseph Smith -- and it was NOT whitewashed. I find him kind of difficult to read myself, but I did enjoy this interview with him and found that I have a lot in common with him. For example, when asked, "How do you define truth?" he said the following:
Nipped for space ...
And I'm certainly glad that I wasn't the one who started this thread. People tend to be more suspicious of a thread on Mormonism if it was a Mormon who started it.
yup ... I looked at Islam the same way. The book is dead nuts on about how to generally run a society. Then when we look at Mohmad and his goals ... it matches perfectly.
So he is generally right ... but the whole Allah thing and a caving angel isnt true.
I also came to realize later that the link was not working for some reason, but I thought anyone who was interested could simply Google for the story. Perhaps as you did. Thanks again in any case.
I really, really, really liked the article. It was entitled, "What you may not know about Mormon historian, Richard Bushman." Well, I'd say the vast majority of people who are not Mormons themselves have never even heard of Bushman. Within non-LDS academic circles, however, he is well-known and respected. His book, "Rough Stone Rolling" was a biography of Joseph Smith -- and it was NOT whitewashed. I find him kind of difficult to read myself, but I did enjoy this interview with him and found that I have a lot in common with him. For example, when asked, "How do you define truth?" he said the following:
We have a very confined notion of truth that’s really defined for us by science, which requires evidence or proof to be accepted. In ancient times, truth was connected to goodness — truth was what led you to a good life. And, for me, that’s always been more important. I’ve always valued the truth that led me to the right kind of life, the one which makes me a good father and husband and prompts me to help people be good. With that kind of truth, I’m very much willing to say, I know the gospel is true.
I can totally relate to that statement and totally agree with it.
I was also very pleased to hear his statements on Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor. It was Brigham, not Joseph, who instituted the priesthood ban on men of African descent. His comments on that subject were these:
My heart goes out to Brigham Young right now. He’s becoming the fall guy [for the church’s former racist priesthood-temple ban.] We really need someone to go through his biography and treat the latter half of his life empathetically. But on race, he really was off base. There seemed to be not just a sad acknowledgment of the limitations of African Americans in the church, but sort of a vindictive quality to him. And he spoke with some force. We just have to say he was wrong. But it’s not our job to condemn him or to say, therefore, we’re canceling him, that he’s worthless. We have to keep it all in perspective.... Brigham did make a mistake on race, and saying he didn’t just gets us in more trouble. It’s better to say they do make mistakes like anyone else.
I also liked how he talked about the balancing act Mormons seem to be caught in the middle of right now -- which was basically the topic of the thread I started a couple of weeks ago on "the most American religion. He uses the word, "cosmopolitanism" to refer to it, and says this:
We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large. At the same time, we need to hold onto our roots in a parochial way. I mean that in a positive sense. We all, even the most cosmopolitan people, need a home base in Mormonism. We’ll keep trying to find words that will allow us to express what we believe in a way that’s acceptable. We want to sound like we’re reasonable souls. I see the merits of that. But that relieves us of the responsibility of defending the things that are uniquely ours — like angels and gold plates — that should be protected.
And I'm certainly glad that I wasn't the one who started this thread. People tend to be more suspicious of a thread on Mormonism if it was a Mormon who started it.
I found the article interesting on a few levels as well, as I noted in my first comment. In particular his quote about "why he sees the Book of Mormon as ‘right’ — as opposed to ‘true.’ " Plenty to ponder there in my opinion. I also appreciated his inclination to ask lots of questions, that still linger. That's me too when it comes to so much other people believe so fervently and so differently from one another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
