Launching LDS Faith Journeys
Rick Bennett of Gospel Tangents and Kurt Francom of Leading Saints announced the launch of a new community platform, LDSFaithJourneys.org. This initiative aims to provide a safe forum for Latter-day Saints to discuss difficult topics—including church history, doctrine, social issues, etc. in the most honest way possible.
From “Crisis” to “Journey”
A central theme of the launch is reframing the language used to describe spiritual struggles. Kurt Francom argues against the term “faith crisis” because it implies brokenness and carries a heavy weight of shame. Instead, the hosts advocate for the term “faith journey,” suggesting that questioning and evolving beliefs are a natural part of spiritual life rather than a sign of failure.
“Scuba Gear” Analogy
Francom introduces an interesting metaphor to explain why some members struggle with the Church. He likens the Gospel to a functional bicycle that some individuals attempt to ride while wearing heavy “scuba gear”—representing personal trauma, baggage, or specific cultural upbringings. For these individuals, the ride is exhausting not because the “bike” (the Church) is broken, but because they are encumbered; sometimes, one must step off the bike to remove the gear before they can pedal successfully again.
Leadership and Empathy
Drawing from his experience as a former bishop, Francom recounts the story of a counselor in his bishopric who left the Church after struggling with the history found in Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. This experience shifted Francom’s perspective, helping him realize that the “standard formula” of activity does not work for everyone and that leaders must create space for nuance.
Tackling Controversial Topics
The episode does not shy away from current controversies. The hosts discuss:
• Polygamy Denial: They address the trend of members claiming Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, noting that while members can believe what they want, public advocacy against Church leaders regarding this history has led some to excommunication.
• Visions of Glory: Francom critiques this popular book as possibly “harmful,” arguing it promotes unhealthy narratives about the “mechanics of heaven” and end-times scenarios.
What’s Next? Rick B plans to host regular live events and discussions on his new YouTube channel. He hopes to feature diverse voices such as Patrick Mason, Jim Bennett, and Janice Allred. (He hasn’t asked them yet.) The goal is to support members in their faith, regardless of where they are on their journey, by offering community and honest conversation.
Do you see a need to help people with faith crises/faith journeys? Is this something you would be interested in?
Wheat & Tares 
Even though this comment will probably seem very critical, I’m not knocking any attempt to try to help make working through challenging issues more comfortable. I have seen a lot of these things come and go, so I’m not particularly confident that one more will solve the puzzle, but it does seem like a worthy thing to keep attempting, regardless of however many efforts have come and gone in the past.
I just was rubbed the wrong way about the scuba analogy and the implications in that.
First of all, starting off with something good. I think that reframing from crisis to journey probably makes sense. I think reframing it as something that is a normal part of life is helpful.
But two things: I don’t think the church would necessarily agree, hence why it usually becomes a crisis for many people. People don’t invent that stuff inside themselves. Rather there’s also a lot of social and cultural factors that people get from participating in the church that prime them to react the way that they do. Obviously, there’s priesthood roulette and bishop roulette and all these other kinds of “roulettes” that mean that different people can have different experiences in the church, so one person’s experience can seem totally unfamiliar to another person. But that doesn’t mean that the person brought that themselves and the church has no role in that.
If I take the scuba gear analogy, what I don’t like is the implication is that the scuba gear is encumbrances brought from “outside” that is not useful, vs a bike, that is always useful.
I would reinterpret it the following way: everyone is on a journey. Part of this journey will be on land, and for much of this part of the journey, a bike will be very helpful. Some people’s journey may exclusively be on land, so they may go their entire journey finding the bike is helpful. However, for many people, part of this journey will be in the sea or a lake or some form of water, and may involve scouring the depths of whatever body of water they are faced with. In these parts, the scuba gear will be more fit for purpose and the bike will be the encumbrance.
Beware anyone who tells you that the bike is the only useful tool.
Beware anyone who tells you to jump into the sea with a bike after throwing away your scuba gear. They either do not have your best interests at heart (least charitable interpretation, I know) or are simply not familiar enough with the different environments that this world has to offer to provide advice that is useful for every context (most charitable interpretation.)
When people suggest that the church isn’t right for everyone, we are saying one of these, depending on how jaded we are 😉
This looks like an interesting project, Rick. Tell us more.
It seems like there are already a lot of “safe forum[s] for Latter-day Saints to discuss difficult topics.” How is LDS Faith Journeys going to be different?
My initial reaction as I began the post: this sounds interesting. I’ll check it out.
Then I got to the SCUBA analogy. I’m trying to be positive. The best thing I can think about that is that it’s condescending. Actually, it comes across as insulting and dishonest. So I’ll check the site out, but I’m not able to be hopeful that it will be useful because of the apparent framing for the discussion.
Andrew – I had similar thoughts when I read the SCUBA analogy. I’m completely fine with assuming my part in struggles, but his analogy assumes the marriage partner (the bike) is always right and ME (the rider) needs to unload all the encumbrances and then the bike will function perfectly. This is classic, “We aren’t the problem, you are”, so go ahead and change the words (crisis to journey), which I agree with, but keep the same old story. At some point, the analogy needs to include the Bike having a rusty chain, worn tires, bent spokes, outdated handlebars, and a seat made only for Heterosexual White Males (which I am one incidentally).
I’m a fan of the attempt and think it’s important, if nothing else, for people to have places to go to share their pain and questions without being told, the bike is never the problem.
When my wife and I decided to stop attending church, it was to shield our son from being raised in a church culture. I can give context and discuss problematic church history or past church doctrine to him without endorsing it. But what I couldn’t do was show him an example of a church where women truly were equal. I couldn’t shield him from regular one-on-one interviews where probing questions of a sexual nature would take place. I couldn’t encourage him not to serve a mission and instead focus his energies on other pursuits (music, art, academics, sports) when a good portion of the entire youth experience is gearing up young men (and now young women) towards this aim. In short, I felt the harms of doctrine, practice, culture outweighed the pros of community. And while we live in Utah, Utah as a whole has become less LDS, especially with the younger generation. So I don’t fear as much that he will be ostracized and “othered” growing up here, even though that would have been the case when I was in junior high and high school.
I think what it would take for us would to start attending again would be an actual change of the bike. And no, sleeveless garments is not going to cut it (pun intended).
Like others here, I object to the scuba gear analogy. And seeing as I am one of those people he is talking about who come from the traumatic background, I probably have some good experience.
Yes, my abusive childhood is an unusual experience. But the more I healed, the worse the church was for me. I found that rather than talking about the abuse issues in my therapy, I was talking about my frustrations with the church. So, the more “scuba gear” I left behind, the worse that bicycle was?? Nope, you have a terrible analogy. I finally told my therapist that I would not be back, because I was going inactive. Now being a convert who found the church the perfect environment for himself, I know he had problems with my conclusion.
No, see, I learned survival tactics for surviving an abusive home. Those were not good “happy marriage” tactics, or “loving mother” tactics, let alone “liking oneself” or “trusting God” tactics. Now, some of those abuse survival tactics were things the church also teaches. Oh, they don’t mean it that way, but it is the same d****d thing. And it isn’t to survive abuse, but to maintain your testimony. Example. To survive abuse the child blames themselves. If you do not get an answer to your prayer about the BoM, you are taught that somehow it has to be you. You didn’t pray sincerely. Or you were not ready. Or something about you is why God didn’t tell you the BoM is true. Always. Never God’s fault. Never that the BoM is something Joseph Smith made up. Never that the church just isn’t what it claims it is. Always something you did wrong. Can anyone here see how that is the same self blame of an abused child?
And this was only one out of many ways the church was preventing me from healing from the abuse.
So, the church was busy piling “scuba gear” on top of me while I was riding its bicycle? Nope. Bad analogy. I had to get away from the church in order to heal from my abusive childhood. The church was busy teaching me things that were just more “scuba gear”, not at all helping me shed the “scuba gear”.
It was not until I could see how the church is exactly like an abusive parent that I could completely heal. I had to see how it pretends perfection and how it puts itself in God’s place, stands between us and God, preventing us from getting more directly to God, how it blames and shames us, holds up a false purity standard instead of a behavioral standard. I had to get rid of the bicycle and the scuba gear before I could climb up rocks. And somewhere, I need to find a good hang gliding kit before I can fly. And I suppose it is easier for me to let go of the bicycle than someone who never let go of scuba gear and will be easier for me to let go of my rock climbing gear to take up the hang glider.
This journey is a long trek over many different terrains. We are all going to have to have the scuba gear at some point. We are all going to have the bike, the rock climbing equipment and the hang glider. We may use them at different times in our lives, or maybe not until the next life. But before we make it to “like God” we are all going to have to cross deep lakes, desert, swamp, up steep rock faces, get ourselves down off cliffs and to the bottom of oceans. We will all need the scuba gear at some point in this long journey to Godlike. Just because this dude with his bicycle analogy has never needed scuba gear, he sees it as only a burden to carry on his bike. No, there is a good purpose to scuba gear and someday, before he makes it to perfection he will need some and then he will find the bike a real problem. You just can’t carry a bicycle with you while scuba diving. That is even worse than riding the bike with the scuba gear. The gear is a tool that is needed for a part of the journey. He is at his bike stage. Good for him. Some day he will get rid of the bike for a good set of ropes and mountain climbing junk. And someday he will need to learn scuba and he will be so glad not to have to take the bike with him.
It’s a journey with many tools we will need for different stages. Sometimes we will use scuba and other times a hang glider. A bicycle is only one of the tools we may want and sometimes it is not a good tool at all.
There fixed his analogy for him. He’s welcome.
Anna and Andrew, I like your modifications to the analogy.
There is no “one true advice.” The aim of the new site is to be a resource that can be helpful, hopefully to many, but at least to some. It is one resource to use that is there to support people regardless of their belief status.
As I said in the livestream, I hope to have a variety of guests from a variety of backgrounds. Some will resonate. Others probably won’t. This website will hopefully resonate more often than it doesn’t. Guests will hopefully come from orthodox, liberal, progressive, conservative, atheist, and excommunicated points of view. For those desiring a connection to the LDS Church (which is clearly not everyone), my hope is this can be a useful resource to get out of the “crisis” and onto the “journey” part of a spiritual reorientation.
I gave a priesthood lesson a few months ago. I had a Powerpoint presentation prepared with to discuss priesthood succession including James Strang, William Bickerton, Alpheus Cutler, Sidney Rigdon, and many of the succession claimants. I was super happy with it. I thought the lesson went well. (It was certainly something *I* had never heard in a priesthood meeting, or any church meeting.) Then one of the more orthodox members raised his hand and said with a puzzled look, “What are we supposed to take away from this?” Thud.
While my lesson resonated with me, clearly it didn’t resonate with him. I know a few class members liked it. I wonder how many more didn’t. It resonated with me, and didn’t resonate with others. I think this website will probably help some and won’t help others. Like the starfish analogy, by throwing 1 stranded starfish into the sea, I may not be able to save them all, but I hope I made a big difference to the one(s). I also hope to help change church culture to be more accepting of differences.
I thought Jesus said “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” I didn’t know the message is that “you can ride the bike but you have to dump your burdens and trauma on your own.”
Now that I think of it, that IS the LDS message : put on a happy face.
Don’t laugh too loudly.
Don’t bring any baggage with you.
The Church is perfect.
The members? Not so much.
Just “put on” a happy face.
While this new forum is a nice idea, I don’t think Kurt Francom is the right choice for a co-host. I fully agree with earlier comments about the scuba gear analogy being problematic; this is symptomatic of Kurt’s longtime approach to difficult Church-related conversations. While I believe Kurt is sincere and genuinely wants to help people, he absolutely refuses to tread into areas that question or scrutinize the institutional Church itself or its leaders, even when they deserve it (and they often do). He just won’t go there, and it’s incredibly limiting at least, but more often disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. I realize he is trying not to alienate his loyal following of faithful members, but he comes off too patronizing, which in turn is victim-blaming. I’ve given his podcast Leading Saints a few chances over the years (especially after my shelf broke and I was trying to find a healthy middle path), but I just can’t listen to him anymore without getting angry at him constantly bypassing the very obvious elephant in the room. He’s trying too hard to be faith-affirming, and instead is willfully ignorant, which is not worth my time.
This looks like a project that will be useful for me, so I’m looking forward to what you do with it.
Small point: At one point you quibbled over the terms “faith crisis” vs. “faith journey.” I would add “faith deconstruction/reconstruction” to the mix, because I feel like deconstruction/reconstruction best describes what is happening in my soul. FWIW.
I think my biggest disappointment in a project like this is that the church itself isn’t doing something like it. In some conversations I have, an orthodox member will say something like, “it isn’t the church’s job to provide answers. You are responsible to find your own answers.” While I wholeheartedly agree with that, it also seems like an admission of some kind that the church is only interested in ministering to McLaren stage 1 and 2 people. As I move through stage 3 (and maybe into 4), it often feels like the church just wants to wash its hands of such people. Expanding @Rick B’s example of the lesson on the succession crisis that fell flat for some, I sometimes feel like most lessons fall flat for me because they are geared towards a Rohr first half of life person (and I am perhaps transitioning towards second half of life). Projects like this show me that there are a number of people in the church who are interested in keeping the church relevant for people in later stages of their faith journey, but the church itself doesn’t seem to demonstrate the same interest. I hesitate to predict my own future, but I sometimes feel like this will be a major part of why I leave the church (if I ever do) — the church will have reached a point where it seemed so irrelevant to my own deconstruction/reconstruction that I will have chosen to reconstruct a faith that doesn’t include the church. I guess to sum up, I like to see projects like this that try to help people see the church’s relevance to their faith journey, but I wish that the church itself wanted me to see its relevance as much as these individual members of the church want me to see it.
Jack,
Kurt was a guest, not a co-host. I had originally booked Kurt weeks earlier, and had planned to announce the website earlier, but had some tech glitches, so it turned out that Kurt helped me announce the channel, but he is not going to be a co-host. Sorry for the confusion there.
Mr Shorty,
My understanding of the stages of faith is stages 1-2 are for children/teens. Most church members are in stage 3. Questioning faith is stage 4. Is McLaren stages different than Fowler?
I also like faith reorientation. De-construction/reconstruction is a bit long. I also think journey can take one to unexpected places and destinations.
@Rick B: Yes, McLaren’s stages are different, though I’m sure there is overlap between him and Fowler. In McLaren’s four stage model, stage 1 is “simplicity” where everything is simple, black and white, and there is only one path (your church’s path) to heaven. Stage 2 is “complexity” where things aren’t as black and white, but you tend to focus on pragmatic things, but still very much “our way is the right way.” Stage 3 is “perplexity” where you deconstruct what you believed in 1 and 2 with lots of questions and doubts and frustrations. Stage 4 is “harmony” where you find ways to hold nuance. If the link will work, here’s a quick summary: https://brianmclaren.net/four-stages-of-faith-development-chart/ (if not, I would hope that Google would find it with a search like “brian mclaren four stages of faith chart”).
“Reorientation” could work, too. In the end, I’m not saying that any one word/phrase fully captures all there is to say. As much as anything, these words seem to work best as a starting place for describing what this experience is like.