Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Deborah

For those who felt deceived

Recommended Posts

Go start a new thread. You've long since dragged this one off-topic.

I'm not the one asking for evidence and details on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not the one asking for evidence and details on this point.

Oh please...the eternal cry of the lazy - "It's not my job!" You brought up the subject, and you insist on defending any refutation thereof. I was merely suggesting that it's taking on a life of it's own and would warrant you creating another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh please...the eternal cry of the lazy - "It's not my job!" You brought up the subject, and you insist on defending any refutation thereof. I was merely suggesting that it's taking on a life of it's own and would warrant you creating another thread.

No, I didn't bring up the subject, and I'm not interested in starting an entire thread about it. Someone else brought it up as part of the reason they lost faith, and believers jumped in with challenges and questions. I didn't know there was some unwritten rule that if people responded to those questions and challenges, they'd be accused of derailing the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh I am quit satisfied with my choice. So much so that I don't spend my time looking and digging for derogitory information about other religions. Did you ever ask yourself why you were not at peace. Not that there aren't those who are non-LDS who are at peace with their choice. It's just the ones I know and count as my friends and aquaintances don't spend their time denigrating others faith. They just go around emulating the savior and doing good.

It's interesting you would jump to the conclusion that I am not at peace. What drew you to that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that this board is a place for the exchange of opinions. Am I wrong on that?

My response -- somewhat but not entirely tongue in cheek; certainly not meriting your somewhat belligerent comment above -- is obviously premised on the proposition that Mormonism is true.

If Belgium is in Europe, it's not possible to know that Belgium is in South America. If Mormonism is true, it's not possible to know that Mormonism is false.

If P, then Q.

P.

Therefore Q.

But even if I were to adopt what seems to be your position, that Mormonism cannot truly be known to be either true or false, it would be impossible to know it to be false.

Not P and not Q.

Therefore not P.

Logic 101. It ought to be the law.

I want to diffuse this conversation, I started with the wrong foot, I am sorry.

You are right, this is a place to exchange ideas and opinions. Your premise of knowing that mormonism is true is what I would like to discuss, maybe on another thread, or through personal message.

Share this post


Link to post
This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the church hid anything from me, per se. I recognize that it's the church's prerogative to present its message, its history, its doctrine etc. as it sees fit. But I did feel like the Church treated me like a child who was incapable of digesting difficult information. So I was fed the one approved story of the first vision. I was taught church history that was long on testimony, persecution and inspirational stories but ultimately bore scant relation to reality (see, e.g., the movie Legacy or those fuzzy painting of Joseph and Emma sold at Deseret Books). I was taught milquetoast doctrine (repeated week after week with little variation).

And institutionally and culturally, I was discouraged from digging any deeper. For example, no class I was in ever discussed any facet of the first vision outside of the version currently contained in the PoGP. And there was a tacit understanding that things outside of the correlation committee-approved versions of things were not to be discussed. My MTC teacher, for instance, liked to relate a parable he called 'stay close to the trunk', calling the trunk the 'core' principles of the gospel, and the branches the more speculative areas. If you stay close to the trunk, you won't fall off (i.e., apostatize). Or if in a D&C course you mentioned peep stones, the topic was treated as a derailment at best and heresy at worst. So my teaching seemed nothing more than a few carefully selected bits of history or doctrine, filled out with a lot of inspirational stories and testimony-bearing.

If found this approach patronizing (treating us as if we weren't capable of handling these topics), and it made it seem as if the church was hiding something. I didn't particularly feel that I was ever exactly lied to but I did always feel like the church was embarrassed and frightened by its own history and doctrine, such that no material could be presented to us other than in the blandest, most sanitized and homogenized forms. I guess I never exactly felt deceived, but I did feel like I was never getting close to 100% of the story, which made it seem like damaging things were being withheld.

Share this post


Link to post

I confess that I've never really understood the notion that the Church somehow keeps information from its members.

Take the First Vision, for instance.

The variant accounts of the First Vision have appeared in BYU Studies, in several books published by Bookcraft, in the Ensign, etc. This is scarcely hiding them. They've been discussed at length in many other venues, as well.

That lots of members don't read and don't know much about Church history and then are blind-sided by surprises is a constant source of pain to me, but it's not the Church's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Bitter much?

:P Not at all. You see what you want to see in my words. That's what is revealing.

I just answered the question. I don't suffer over any of it. No one get through life without going down a few wrong paths.

I am quite happy. Sorry to disappoint.

Share this post


Link to post
I confess that I've never really understood the notion that the Church somehow keeps information from its members.

Take the First Vision, for instance.

The variant accounts of the First Vision have appeared in BYU Studies, in several books published by Bookcraft, in the Ensign, etc. This is scarcely hiding them. They've been discussed at length in many other venues, as well.

That lots of members don't read and don't know much about Church history and then are blind-sided by surprises is a constant source of pain to me, but it's not the Church's fault.

I assume this is in response to my post. I never said that the church keeps information from its members or that it hides anything. My problem is that it generally presents it in a way that is infantilizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Such an educated stupid person.

Hahaha... I laughed pretty hard when I read this... very funny. And true. Maybe he should try studying his religion, rather than bashing ours, boasting his PhD., and waiting for the galactic war to call him into battle.

Share this post


Link to post
:P Not at all. You see what you want to see in my words. That's what is revealing.

Since you have no idea what I "want" and don't, I think you may have stepped into an area in which you lack the necessary empirical evidence to opine.

I just answered the question. I don't suffer over any of it. No one get through life without going down a few wrong paths.

I am quite happy. Sorry to disappoint.

Why would I be disappointed? That's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Things look so clear when one is a teenager. As you grow older and see the prophecies fulfilled; that the church isn't going to suddenly be stopped by the Internet, you may yet reconsider (unless you lose the Spirit through transgression). Keep in mind that looking back in the Book of Mormon, at things that things look so obviously backdated and contrived, are actually more complicated than you thought. The Book of Mormon made some astounding prophecies that have come to pass. The United States indeed became a nation above all others. The church did prosper and is filling the Earth despite the fact that in 1830 it seemed like an impossible task. There are dozens of small religious movements competing with Joseph Smith and Mormonism at the time and most of them are dead or dying. This is the only Christian church that claims divine oversight, which is what Daniel means when he says that the kingdom would be like a stone "without hands" that would not be left to others.

It seems a shame that you're abandoning the church at the very age when I found it. The chances are, people who want to be freed of the obligations and responsibilities of the church can usually find reasons to leave it. Chances are, though, that you'll live to see many of the "calamities" the Lord warned would be coming. As one who's been all over the Internet himself, I can say that you're building your foundation on sand. If you really want to put your faith to the test, read the Book of Mormon with a degree of humility and examine some of the great works (Truman Madsen's On Sacred Ground series, David J. Ridges 50 Signs of the Times and the Second Coming of Christ). Many ex-LDS seem to be actively involved in a continuing effort to convince themselves that they did the right thing. I hope you'll at least keep an open mind over the coming months and years. You'll see many things happen that will snap you back or send you out further.

The problem I have is not just with mormonism though, it's all of Christianity. It's not polygamy or JoD that discouraged me, it's the concept of God, the attributes of God, the issue of faith, the atrocities that the Lord allows, receiving revelation, the evil God of the OT and reconciling him with the God of the NT, Jesus's ethics, the study of metaphysics, the study of epistimology, theology and philosophy in general, and the rationality of it all. I am not so much interested in some of the finer aspects of The LDS church, since I have a problem with chrisitianity as a whole. But things like the BoM inaccuracy and evolution add to the pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Hahaha... I laughed pretty hard when I read this... very funny. And true. Maybe he should try studying his religion, rather than bashing ours, boasting his PhD., and waiting for the galactic war to call him into battle.
Hi MatthewG. :P
Since you have no idea what I "want" and don't, I think you may have stepped into an area in which you lack the necessary empirical evidence to opine.Why would I be disappointed? That's absurd.
Bitter much?

Share this post


Link to post
I assume this is in response to my post. I never said that the church keeps information from its members or that it hides anything. My problem is that it generally presents it in a way that is infantilizing.

Hmmmm. Okay. While I personally often find Sunday School discussions a bit simplistic and uninformed, I guess I'm too stupid to have been offended by them or to have perceived them as "infantilizing."

Share this post


Link to post
Hahaha... I laughed pretty hard when I read this... very funny. And true. Maybe he should try studying his religion, rather than bashing ours, boasting his PhD., and waiting for the galactic war to call him into battle.

Ummmm...Dr. Tarski is a die-hard atheist, not a Scientologist...he likes to compare our beliefs to that of Scientology in order to be inflammatory.

Share this post


Link to post
And institutionally and culturally, I was discouraged from digging any deeper.
This was the opposite of my experience. I was always reading and trying to learn more and I never, ever heard not to study to find out more or to get answers to questions. BYU had an entire church section with books that spoke of all these controversial issues; my professors encouraged questions and study. I suppose that is why I find it so hard to accept this. Furthermore had someone told me I shouldn't delve deeper I would have been more intent on doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Hmmmm. Okay. While I personally often find Sunday School discussions a bit simplistic and uninformed, I guess I'm too stupid to have been offended by them or to have perceived them as "infantilizing."

Where did you get that I was 'offended' from? Mormons seem so fixated on finding some 'offense' suffered in the minds of former members.

Share this post


Link to post
Ummmm...Dr. Tarski is a die-hard atheist, not a Scientologist...he likes to compare our beliefs to that of Scientology in order to be inflammatory.

I am not a die hard anything. I am a skeptic and agnostic. I admit to having seen no evidence for the existence of a Biblical God and have not been moved by other's boasts of having been in contact with God (since I once though the same thing and likely for the same reasons).

Share this post


Link to post
Bitter much?

Now you're just being petty; especially given that there was nothing in my post which could possibly be perceived as "bitter"...not like a laundry list of all the BAD things in someone's life which might be attributable to someone's parents teaching them about Mormonism, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Now you're just being petty; especially given that there was nothing in my post which could possibly be perceived as "bitter

.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly.

Your editing of my statement was REQUIRED in order for your response to reasonably follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Where did you get that I was 'offended' from? Mormons seem so fixated on finding some 'offense' suffered in the minds of former members.

Sigh. Please don't attempt to work me into your stereotype.

Did you or did you not find the Church's treatment of history offensive to your sensibilities about how adults ought to be treated? I said nothing, and intended to say nothing, about any petty personal grievances you may have suffered.

Share this post


Link to post
My problem is that it generally presents it in a way that is infantilizing.
Considering the different level members are at, it's understandable lessons would be basic in nature. Furthermore many people really aren't interested in some of the historical stuff, and that doesn't even cover the short time we have in church to even discuss the basics. I call it an economy of presentation. That is why we have Institutes, Seminars such as the Sperry Symposium, Education Week and BYU channel with all kinds of detailed discussion on the scriptures as well as church history. That doesn't even take into account all the books that have been written. Yet even when all these things are available, very few members actually use them. Not a criticism, just that most people really are content with the basic principles and have their faith and testimony to carry them through because they are too busy living their lives to be overly concerned with some of the more controversial issues.

Share this post


Link to post
This was the opposite of my experience. I was always reading and trying to learn more and I never, ever heard not to study to find out more or to get answers to questions. BYU had an entire church section with books that spoke of all these controversial issues; my professors encouraged questions and study. I suppose that is why I find it so hard to accept this. Furthermore had someone told me I shouldn't delve deeper I would have been more intent on doing so.

I admit that my experiences may differ from others' experiences--I can only relate what happened to me. But my experience was that in the Church generally (and I will admit there were some exceptions) the material was not only simplified but simplistic, and the instruction and discussion was highly sanitized, and you were always encouraged to 'stick to the basics', which was is to say those specific materials.

Share this post


Link to post
This was the opposite of my experience. I was always reading and trying to learn more and I never, ever heard not to study to find out more or to get answers to questions. BYU had an entire church section with books that spoke of all these controversial issues; my professors encouraged questions and study. I suppose that is why I find it so hard to accept this. Furthermore had someone told me I shouldn't delve deeper I would have been more intent on doing so.

My experience exactly.

I have less patience than perhaps I ought to have with complaints about how the Church failed to tell Apostate X about variant accounts of the First Vision, or the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or the existence of nineteenth-century plural marriage. I knew about all of these things by my mid-teens, living in a marginally-Mormon family in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...