Interview With Don Bradley.

[Gadianton]

It wouldn't have made any difference. Alternative framings of the words used might be debated by sectarians who are each assured that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong, and that any failure for a person to see things their way must go back to some mistake they made in how they approached the question. To get the real real answer you got to lean into it -- well now that may be a bit too much shoulder and look at that left foot --- oh wait, you're getting the answer that my God is the right one? On second thought that left foot looks true.

[I Have Questions]

I’m unsure as to why you feel qualified to assert that Don is misspeaking about his own journey, but let’s say you’re correct in your assessment. You’re basically saying Don is misleading people about his journey (maybe unwittingly), and that he was less devout and committed at each stage of that journey as he jumped from one ideology to the next, than he is trying to portray.

No, what I am saying is that the word ideology is not a felicitous choice precisely because it is easily twisted and misconstrued by others. For example, it is a word that political conservatives call out as a Marxist term and use to identify the speaker as suspect. I have absolutely no doubt that Don was not deliberately misleading people about his journey. Still, I am entitled to critique his choice of words and weigh in on whether that term reflects what I experienced as his close friend of over thirty years. I was with him through that entire journey, and I have spoken with him about his spiritual life through every change along the way. I wouldn't use the word ideology to describe any of it, but, then, I may experience the usage of the word differently from the way he does.

Don also uses the word “devout” to describe his teenage self in relation to Mormon ideology. So when Don goes on to say he embraced Atheistic ideology, I think it’s reasonable to read that as him saying he was a devout atheist, and then a devout evangelical, and then back to being a devout Mormon again. It is interesting that you, a close friend, does not support his version of events.

[Marcus]

It wouldn't have made any difference. Alternative framings of the words used might be debated by sectarians who are each assured that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong, and that any failure for a person to see things their way must go back to some mistake they made in how they approached the question. To get the real real answer you got to lean into it -- well now that may be a bit too much shoulder and look at that left foot --- oh wait, you're getting the answer that my God is the right one? On second thought that left foot looks true.

Well said.

[Kishkumen]

Don also uses the word “devout” to describe his teenage self in relation to Mormon ideology. So when Don goes on to say he embraced Atheistic ideology, I think it’s reasonable to read that as him saying he was a devout atheist, and then a devout evangelical, and then back to being a devout Mormon again. It is interesting that you, a close friend, does not support his version of events.

It is “a version” of events that he articulated on that occasion. I doubt he and I would disagree with each other about his experience in conversation with each other. I have no reason to doubt that he sincerely believed in what he chose to follow while he was doing it. That I don’t perceive the word ideology being optimal or in line with my perception of those changes across time is not a big deal.

[I Have Questions]

Don also uses the word “devout” to describe his teenage self in relation to Mormon ideology. So when Don goes on to say he embraced Atheistic ideology, I think it’s reasonable to read that as him saying he was a devout atheist, and then a devout evangelical, and then back to being a devout Mormon again. It is interesting that you, a close friend, does not support his version of events.

It is “a version” of events that he articulated on that occasion. I doubt he and I would disagree with each other about his experience in conversation with each other. I have no reason to doubt that he sincerely believed in what he chose to follow while he was doing it. That I don’t perceive the word ideology being optimal or in line with my perception of those changes across time is not a big deal.

Well, it was a big enough deal for you to post to criticise its usage when you thought I was the person choosing to use it and not Don. Now you have been made aware that Don introduced the term himself, it’s now not a big deal.

Anyway. Moving on…

It wouldn't have made any difference. Alternative framings of the words used might be debated by sectarians who are each assured that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong, and that any failure for a person to see things their way must go back to some mistake they made in how they approached the question. To get the real real answer you got to lean into it -- well now that may be a bit too much shoulder and look at that left foot --- oh wait, you're getting the answer that my God is the right one? On second thought that left foot looks true.

Well said.

Yes. I think Mormons (maybe it applies to all religious believers) have a tolerance for things that support what they want to believe, that they wouldn’t have in any other walk of life. Although some do, hence why Mormons are particularly susceptible to affinity fraud. They’ve been groomed to believe the unbelievable regardless of the objective evidence. I’d imagine that Don would have demonstrated that tolerance for each of the ideologies that he has so far embraced, in the moments he was embracing them.

[msnobody]

There is a difference in trying out this religion or that religion (which we do).

Do we? That’s certainly not what I do. I think Don’s journey from ideology to ideology is an unusual one. A outlier. Certainly not the norm. Particularly when it comes to Mormonism.

You say there’s a difference in trying out this or that religion, but don’t seem to explain with what alternative to that there is a difference. Can you expand on what the differences are between?

Difference being simply reaching the end of oneself, and surrendering oneself to God.

I’m unsure as to why you feel qualified to assert that Don is misspeaking about his own journey, but let’s say you’re correct in your assessment. You’re basically saying Don is misleading people about his journey (maybe unwittingly), and that he was less devout and committed at each stage of that journey as he jumped from one ideology to the next, than he is trying to portray.

No, what I am saying is that the word ideology is not a felicitous choice precisely because it is easily twisted and misconstrued by others. For example, it is a word that political conservatives call out as a Marxist term and use to identify the speaker as suspect. I have absolutely no doubt that Don was not deliberately misleading people about his journey. Still, I am entitled to critique his choice of words and weigh in on whether that term reflects what I experienced as his close friend of over thirty years. I was with him through that entire journey, and I have spoken with him about his spiritual life through every change along the way. I wouldn't use the word ideology to describe any of it, but, then, I may experience the usage of the word differently from the way he does.

Hence the problems with communicating with others...

One thing is certain: no one will ever please everyone when talking about this sensitive topic.

Don has openly shared his spiritual journey as long as I’ve known him, both online and in later years speaking personally with him. I have always felt honored that he would do this for us (our online community).

I may not articulate this very well, but I’ll try. There is a difference in trying out this religion or that religion (which we do). I’d even go so far as to say we have that spiritual void inside of us that only God can fill, or else, we’d never even ponder the existence of God, or try on any religion(s)/religious practices. Yes, we try on religion, what we think are good works, probably with or without the thought of earning God’s favor. I personally think we do this to make our sin nature more palatable for ourselves, as we feel the burden of our sin. In an unregenerate state, we probably can’t even realize the burden of sin that weighs us down. Yet the Law makes us conscious of sin (thanks be to God for making bids to us to turn to Him for what we cannot do ourselves). Conviction of sin is a gift from God. It is God who leads us to Christ through the Holy Spirit, to a regenerated heart, that can surrender our being to Christ. Then, if that weren’t enough, the Holy Spirit, testifies to our spirit, that we are children of God, and is the guarantee of our eternal life with our Heavenly Father.

I think a different perspective might be considered. We aren’t chasing after God, He is chasing after us. We are preoccupied with time and space, whereas his is eternal.

How might it have been different if Joseph Smith didn’t ask Heavenly Father which religion is correct, but rather, “I don’t know if you’re for real, but if you are, I surrender my life and my being to you?”

God is working to take us back, one person at a time. Hence, what seems like a delay, or day that some insist will never come.

I don't have any real disagreement with much of what you say here, but I would also point out that Joseph Smith was asking God for wisdom (inspired by James 1:5) from the position of a person who already believed God was real because he saw the orderly cosmos as evidence of God's existence.

Fair enough. I should have worded that better. He did ask which was true, and which one he should join. I don’t think his prayer was one of repentance and surrender to God.

[Gadianton]

Perhaps he would have prayed differently is Chick tracts had been around back then.

[Rivendale]

Perhaps he would have prayed differently is Chick tracts had been around back then.

I never understand what was meant by pray harder. Is it frequency? Is it physical exertion? Is it a certain cadence? Is it amplitude or lack of? Is it rehearsed conviction? Does it require pain? Is there a specific body position?

[Gadianton]

The point is to pray in such a manner that implies you accept the worldview of your interlocutor. Specifically, your manner of prayer should take the cart before the horse. The way any believer can control the narrative, and protect their worldview from being invalidated due to somebody's spiritual journey not landing where they are, is by requiring the seeker to use strict vocabulary that only somebody indoctrinated by their own beliefs would use.

Take the Mormon view of James. if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. Sure, it says that, but, it's become a unique theological marker for Mormons. Using God like a magic 8-ball isn't common to the rest of Christianity. The rest of Christianity would say that's taking James out of context, it doesn't say God will tell you which church is true, it's assumed that "Christianity" is already true and for those who operate under the mantel of belief, they may receive wisdom in their general spiritual journey, with the primary confession of faith already being settled.

Now I don't think this would prohibit somebody from reading James, praying, and then feeling guided to their local Assemblies of God and admitting to the fact. They'd probably be welcomed as a miracle. But that's a one-off thing. If that person then said they prayed, and was told to go another path, they'd be told that's impossible because the Bible is the authority, not your feelings about it, and the Bible clearly says they are right. But if somebody said they read James, prayed, and then were guided to the Mormons, it's a huge red flag because the chances are one in ten million that such a situation would organically occur without the missionaries having first indoctrinated them.

So my point is, by the time a person cites James and says they are taking the matter before God to find out if it's true -- they've implicitly accepted Mormonism as true already, at least they've accepted it provisionally. Likewise, if a person says they are going to surrender to Lord Jesus in prayer, then they have already provisionally accepted Assemblies of God or some other dispensationalist style group as their own.

[Rivendale]

The acceptance part is what I am interested in. In a previous post it is said you must surrender yourself to Jesus. Hostage situation aside is the surrendering a conscious act or a subconscious priming due to previous failed attempts?