Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Rollo Tomasi]

[quote name='D. Charles Pyle, 32

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: I don't see how anyone with a straight face can claim that the Church does not downplay and avoid the polygamy issue, based on its own publications.

Unless the Church thinks there isn't a polygamy "issue" at all.

-Allen

[1973betRP&Glendale]

For anyone who thinks the church is trying to hide it's history or the "true" nature of Joseph Smith, I would invite them to purchase or find a copy of Truman G. Madsen's eight-part "Joseph Smith the Prophet" lecture series.

Madsen is very forth-coming about many of Smith's imperfections and short-comings, so it is hardly a one-sided look at the man. Madsen also talks about issues such as the different versions of the First Vision, Joseph and Emma Smith's relationship, as well as the written observations of those who personally knew Smith, including many non-Mormons.

Madsen also shows that despite the continued opposition Joseph Smith faced, he was able to build a church and a community that is growing even now.

This is an incredible series for both LDS Church members, as well as non-members.

(I didn't get paid to mention this, in case you were wondering)

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

Not having read this entire thread but only the heading I think everyone would benefit from reading "On Being A Mormon Historian" by D Michael Quinn which addresses this very topic.  It's very good in my opinion.

...Except that Quinn pads his footnotes with stuff that often does not say what he interprets it to say. I once considered buying a couple of books written by him--until I sourcechecked a couple chapters at random, which included writing letters and making a few phonecalls to obtain the original documents Quinn quoted. I have decided not to purchase anything from him unless I completely sourcecheck it first. Of course, this is something I have little time for at the moment so I do not know that I ever shall own anything written by him.

In short, read Quinn with caution.

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

Yes, I think you are exaggerating both the issue and the quote a bit. You said the quote says:

in addition, this brief paragraph instructs that it should be read ONLY if a class member raises the issue first. So much for the Church being "up front" about its polygamy past, even when the class is about Church history ....

The quote actually says:

6.

[Dale]

I am not sure with all the unethical anti-Mormon treatments of polygamy they would be wise to be upfront on everything. They know when they publish something in an official publication it gets cited if it's on a contravercial historical matter like this. I don't see downplaying or avoiding the polygamy issue is more than they can do. If everybody was mature as a scholar then I could see them getting deep. But the disgust people on this board express constantly doesn't give them a way to change.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Unless the Church thinks there isn't a polygamy "issue" at all.

Then why employ clever wordplay, out-of-sequencing discussions, portrayal of polygamist Church presidents as monogamists, etc., etc., etc.? If it's not a big deal, then why does the Church make it a big deal by appearing evasive on this issue?

[Rollo Tomasi]

[quote name='D. Charles Pyle' date=' 32

[Benjamin McGuire]

What an interesting thread (although I knew that it was coming, having read the stuff on RFM some time ago).

A couple of comments. It must really bother some people like Scottie and Rollie, to know that the vast majority of LDS members who encounter polygamy for the first time, simply do not experience this kind of response to "discovery". In fact, I generally get the impression that they believe that belief in Mormonism is irrational. And it it must be quite a puzzle for them why it is that there are those of us who are otherwise at least as informed as they are, who are seemingly intelligent, who apparently aren't rational.

Obviously, of course, there are differences for everyone. And there are issues that are going to be raised for different people. After all, polygamy is not an unknown subject in the church. You can't get away from it, it seems, and yes, the church does downplay it - but I suspect that its major reason for doing so has nothing to do with hiding it, but rather to avoid giving its practice an air of legitimacy today. After all, how many of the Utah mormons have to do nothing more than look at a family groupsheet to see evidence of it. It isn't polygamy in general, it is the polygamy of Joseph Smith that some people have a problem with.

I note a few things from the original correspondance posted by John in the beginning of this thread (John, of course, should know by now after our years of sparring that I have little patience for his approach to all things Mormon):

is it that we shouldn't take away from what really needs to be taught? or is it that the Church knows that its true history is damaging to testimonies and many people would leave the Church if they knew the truth? ....harmful as it might be, it's not even close to as damaging as discovering it through an outside source.

What an interesting thought. What makes it damaging to testimony? I am not sure John has ever even given this much consideration (seeing as he doesn't have much - if any - of a testimony himself - I am almost certain that he has publicly stated this in my discussions with him in the past.) Do we base our testimonies purely on an some ideal version of what we think a prophet should be? (This is, of course a huge issue - if we expect perfection in a prophet, it doesn't matter what the issue is or which prophet it is, we can find fault). Do we base our testimonies on the principles of forgiveness and on the personal revelation and prayer? Personally, I don't think that individuals who have their testimonies "damaged" in this fashion ever really had much of a testimony to begin with. But that's just me - and I could be wrong. Certainly I see such an approach stemming from a fundamentalist mindset. I had a recent chat with my mother about this - how it is that people who have this mindset, and find themselves at odds with the church, have very little they can do about it - it is nearly impossible to change their mindset - their fundamentalism. They simply shift one set of authoritative voices for another. Their rigidity doesn't change. Their approach doesn't change. They don't stop using simplistic arguments (often repeated like mantras). It just shifts in focus.

I have never met a person, personally, (myself included) who ever went through a significant personal conversion experience - including significant personal repentance - who ever came away from that experience without losing much of this rigidity - and lost in the process, much of their fundamentalism - even if they still held to points of view which we might call fundamentalist. So we get back to the comments provided:

Did my parents not have time to tell me the truth? Or were they just too afraid...so I had to learn it from a total stranger. (sorry for the silly analogy.)

Yet this experience is not everyone's experience. I knew about these issues as a very young person - and I learned much of it from my parents. There are very few issues that I have ever encountered first from a critic - and even fewer that I couldn't immediately approach other LDS members to discuss. And yet, somehow, I have never gotten the impression that the church was hiding something, or that I had discovered some testimony shaking facet of my religion.

I loved the anecdotal evidence. I agree, there are a lot of members who really don't care about the history. I find it almost humorous to think what such an analysis would do to the early leaders of our country. Of course, the difference is that somehow, people with a fundamentalist mind set seem to expect that their own cultural view, and personal view of the way things ought to be is what should be reflected in the histories of their "spotless" religious leaders. Yet such an egocentric point of view can never result in a positive approach to any history - and it doesn't matter if one is an adherent to Mormonism, or to any other theism which accepts human leaders as having some form of authority. Very few Mormons leave Mormonism for another form of authoritative religion - which would never hold up to such scrutiny. Instead they tend to adopt secular authorities. After all, John, Scottie, and Rollo - how many participants on RFM are more than willing to accept the secular claims of Southerton and the like without ever attempting to understand the hard science? Without having sufficient grasp of the science, however, they are just as willing to dismiss the LDS as an "apologist" as they were earlier willing to dismiss the critic as "anti-mormon". They aren't open-minded. They are still fundamentalist.

Of course, it doesn't help that the critic sets himself up as an authority - and plays on these issues. If Brigham Young believed in pre-Adamites (and viewed them as sub-human), perhaps it ought to be explained at the same time that many of the people of his day also believed this same thing (in fact, one particularly nasty "scholarly" article on Mormon polygamy discussed how it had, in the course of a single generation, produced children who were a throwback to such a sub-human species, including specific identifiable physical features). Perhaps, Southerton should have been more explicit in writing his book, in identifying the fact that his approach has little significance if we accept the LGT - and then pointed out those individuals, historically, (including Joseph Smith) who made comments supporting such an interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Do we get these kinds of criticisms? No. So, once more, we have a fundamentalist mindset which simply replaces one set of authorities with another - a new set which they are just as unlikely to question and examine and become flexible about as the first.

Scottie's response? - "Well said". Which simply indicates to me that he is a fundamentalist.

Later, Scottie makes these comments:

The bottom line is this...Faithful LDS members are finding out that JS practiced polygamy by means other than the church. MANY of these members are disturbed by this. Some of those many are leaving the church because of it.

You can debate the whys and hows and who's to blame all you want. But the bottom line still remains the same.

So, will the church step up and do something about this? Or will they continue to fail to reconize it as a problem and keep claiming that "the information is out there if they would just look!"

I honestly think that this one issue causes more dissention than any other problem. Again, I don't know why that is. I don't know why people are ok with BY being a polygamist, but when they find out JS was they feel betrayed. It's a mystery to me.

Just devote 1 more SS lesson to JS and polygamy and I would bet these threads disappear.

What an opening statement. Some (and I would say this isn't a terribly large percentage based on personal experience) faithful members are finding out this information from sources which are not the church. Many (although I have no idea how you would justify this characterization - and I have no interest in contesting it) - Many of these some are disturbed when they learn this information. Some, of those many of those some leave the church over it. This means that most members either never encounter it, or encounter it first in church related material. Some of those who encounter it from other sources are not disturbed, but most of those who are, do not leave the church over it.

This to me indicates that it isn't the material itself which is the cause of people leaving the church - nor is it likely that widespread exposure to this material in a version which would be watered down (simply because, in general, the church tends to water down everything designed for widespread consumption), wouldn't make much of an impact on whether these people remain in the church, or depart for some other issue. It isn't the specific issues which are the reasons why these people leave the church, it is because they don't have significant personal testimonies.

So should the church do something about it? Sure - they need to work on helping people find and build their own testimonies (which is what they do now). How successful they are varies from person to person. What you seem to be failing to realize is that most people in the church (at least as far as my experience goes - and that seems to be fairly reliable) simply aren't interested in the topic. Instead, part of the perceptions of John and Rollo (I won't comment on Scottie since I don't know much about him) seems (at least as far as I can tell) to be forged by the fact that they deal mostly with like minded disaffected or ex-LDS. Whereas I generally deal with a much broader spectrum regularly. If much of your correspondance with LDS members are with those who have issues, you may begin to feel that many LDS have these issues.

This of course is clearly demonstrated in Scottie's later comment:

Due to the reactions I get when I tell people that JS practiced polygamy and the posts I see here about how disturbed people are, I would say that it is a problem.

I have no preconception that participation in these forums even comes close to representing a normal spectrum of members of the church. Nor am I willing to accept Scottie's own anecdotal evidence since my own experience is quite different (and I suspect that when Scottie announces it, he does so in a way to maximize shock value. Probably talks about the 14 year old, etc.) Since my own experience is so different from Scottie's (both in terms of people being aware and in their response to the subject) I can only agree with Scottie's own suggested theory as being a likely reason (although I recognize that he said it in jest):

Perhaps the vast majority of Church Mormons wouldn't give a rats hind end when they found out about JS. My experience has shown me otherwise, but, as I said, that is too small a sample to base such a broad generalization.

Perhaps Scottie has spent too much time in Utah where the issue of polygamy can be quite polarizing ....

A little later in the thread, Neighbor wrote:

A recent example is how the Church treated Grant Palmer, whose crime was to realize that there are issues hidden, and he seemed to think LDS are honest people and deserve to know the truth. Yet, what happened to Mr. Palmer when he wrote a book about how he was trying to make the most of some bad things? He was held up for Church discipline. As he said during his radio interview in SLC before the 'hearing' - "I don't know how to repent of the truth."

Grant Palmer's book is largely nonsense. Anyone who has any significant understanding of textual criticism will notice quite quickly that his alleged parallels are largely contrived - and use ideology as a substitute for method. I have produced some critiques of his book here on these forums - pointing out conclusively some of his errors. The challenge - once again - deals with the presentation. He presents himself as an authority figure (why else call it an "Insiders" view - when, as far as I can tell, he no more an insider than I am). He uses the same kind of evidentiary techniques to destroy faith as he used to promote it - basing them on the same premises - there is of course no questioning the premises. What he wrote ISN'T THE TRUTH. It may be that he believes it to be true (which I can understand) - but it is still the exact same belief set that he previously had - he has simply swapped out authoritative voices. I loved the comment he made about Nibley's using out of context material to provide parallels. And then he spends dozen of pages speculating as to who would have read The Golden Pot who might have then had a connection to Joseph Smith so that Joseph could then incorporate those ideas into his histories - to the level of detail that Palmer suggests that the use by Joseph of the phrase "green sward" is somehow significant. This is TRUTH? What is the difference between Palmer and Nibley? Palmer doesn't really answer this question. But it seems quite clear that his approach assumes that Nibley is right on in the notion of how parallels can be used to constitute proof. He is imply suggesting that his are better than Nibley's (without really explaining how or why this is the case). But the greater fact is apparent. Palmer cannot be considered to be orthodox. And his publications are not orthodox. And it is his attempt to give himself a cloak of authority at the expense of the church that creates a need for the church to officially censor the material. This isn't a new thing in the church. Apostle Orson Pratt (who could be called an insider) received much the same treatment for some of his writings.

As an aside, as a non-believer yourself, I am curious as to why you think that believers should find your comments relevant.

As a final comment to Neighbor - one of the great things about LDS belief is that we don't have to worry about resolving contradictions that we find. We aren't required to be locked into a fundamentalist belief that scripture is inerrant or accurate or without a need for interpretation. I do love your conspiracy theories.

In the end, I think that the single greatest symptom of the fundamentalist mindset is the constant demand for change - change so that it conforms to a personal idea of what the Gospel "should be like". Change in what is taught and how it is taught (so that it conforms with someone's perception of "truth").

I was recently forwarded a sunstone presentation which started off on what seemed like a really wonderful topic - how members of the church need to have a greater voice in the way the church functions - and by the end it had dissolved into a rant (during which it was admitted that there was no longer any faith) that the church should grant women the priesthood, make this change, make that change, and so on. I didn't get the impression that the individual was actually very sympathetic to those views (he really didn't seem to be very aware of the concerns and issues for women in the church) - he was simply making the statement that to him, the church was an unacceptable institution. Would doing all of these things restore his faith? No. Faith doesn't come from the institution. Salvific faith comes from repentance and doing the will of God - and not from understanding history. In the end, I reject much of what people like Scottie and Rollo and John say. In many ways, their response trivializes me in the church. I am faithful. I am a believer. I am aware of a great deal of the history - the favorable and the unfavorable. I don't have a need to find an apologetic for everything. I don't feel a need for these issues to be addressed. I don't see a need for accelerating change. I have a voice. I influence others. I see the results of my approach. And unlike these non-believing critics, because I speak from a position of faith, I will always be more affective at producing change than they will. Perhaps, someday, they will learn to overcome their fundamentalism and really become the open minded people they claim to be.

Ben

[juliann]

Yes, the information is out there for any member to research (as we on this bb have done), but I don't see how anyone with a straight face can claim that the Church does not downplay and avoid the polygamy issue, based on its own publications.

Remember the days when it was the BOM that was so "awful"? Then it was how bad women were treated. Now the antis have landed on "polygamy". It has to be the most ridiculous complaint of all of them. First, polygamy is the first thing the world thinks of when they hear "Mormon". Church members are part of the world population and hear it, too! I was treated to the movie Chicago while stuck in a waiting area where I could not avoid it and one of the lines was about a man who had other wives...because he was Mormon. Of course, the lurid sex angle is always good for a few good jabs....until the irony of the feigned moral indignation and righteous shock catches up with the life styles the complainer overlooks today as a matter of course.

Get some new material for cryin' out loud.

[LDSIntel]

I think that LDS Church doctrine is so different from mainstream religious thought, that many feel that new members have to be gradually brought to the truth. I would compare it to swimming. You don't just jump in the middle of the lake, you start at the shore and move slowly and safely out to the deeper waters.

However, I have found it somewhat difficult talking about changes in Temple ceremony and the words that have/are being used. I have noticed that they "have" changed... to be more compatible with current situations. A example would be the oath of vengence, cutting one's neck. This is similar with Freemasonry. Freemasons/Masons used to take that same oath more seriously. Heck, there's historical evidence of Freemasons, extremists, actually killing Freemasons who broke their oath to keep the ceremonies and customs of Freemasonry secret. Another example of this would be the cause of the skism between the LDS Church and the Utah Grand Lodge of F&A Freemasonry until the latter end of the 20th century.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It must really bother some people like Scottie and Rollie, to know that the vast majority of LDS members who encounter polygamy for the first time, simply do not experience this kind of response to "discovery". In fact, I generally get the impression that they believe that belief in Mormonism is irrational. And it it must be quite a puzzle for them why it is that there are those of us who are otherwise at least as informed as they are, who are seemingly intelligent, who apparently aren't rational.

...

After all, John, Scottie, and Rollo - how many participants on RFM are more than willing to accept the secular claims of Southerton and the like without ever attempting to understand the hard science? Without having sufficient grasp of the science, however, they are just as willing to dismiss the LDS as an "apologist" as they were earlier willing to dismiss the critic as "anti-mormon". They aren't open-minded. They are still fundamentalist.

...

Instead, part of the perceptions of John and Rollo (I won't comment on Scottie since I don't know much about him) seems (at least as far as I can tell) to be forged by the fact that they deal mostly with like minded disaffected or ex-LDS.

...

In the end, I reject much of what people like Scottie and Rollo and John say. In many ways, their response trivializes me in the church. I am faithful. I am a believer. I am aware of a great deal of the history - the favorable and the unfavorable. I don't have a need to find an apologetic for everything. I don't feel a need for these issues to be addressed. I don't see a need for accelerating change. I have a voice. I influence others. I see the results of my approach. And unlike these non-believing critics, because I speak from a position of faith, I will always be more affective at producing change than they will. Perhaps, someday, they will learn to overcome their fundamentalism and really become the open minded people they claim to be.

I can only speak for myself, and will address that above statements directed toward me in turn:

1. I have never said that members' discovery of heretofore unknown polygamy details cause a "testimony-breaking" experience. Quite the opposite is true, imo, for I find that many TBM's are easily able to brush off troubling issues from Church history with the typical "we don't know everything now, and God will explain it all in the next life" explanation -- cognitive dissonance can be very handy for those who choose to believe no matter what.

2. I do not believe that a belief in Mormonism is "irrational." I'm a believer myself (albeit in ways perhaps different from typical TBM's, but a believer nonetheless), and view myself as quite rational.

3. I think I am open-minded, and have said several times on this bb that the DNA evidence, imo, does not conclusively disprove BofM historicity (of course, it doesn't support it, either). Nevertheless, the DNA evidence is just another among a pile of evidences that do not support BofM historicity, which is why I believe it can be troublesome to many members (and why FARMS and other apologists are attacking it with such vehemence).

4. I deal mostly wtih very faithful and believing LDS; I rarely participate on RfM, and spend most of my Internet time here, where believers far outnumber the critics and ex-LDS.

5. My comments here are never intended to trivialize you or anyone else in the Church, but rather, to discuss freely and openly issues relating to Mormonism. I, too, and faithful; I, too, am a believer; I, too, am aware of a great deal of the history, both favorable and unfavorable; I, too, don't need an apologetic for everything. That said, however, I don't see any reason why every issue and event in Church doctrine and history shouldn't be discussed in a forum such as this. Where I think change would be beneficial, I use my voice and influence to argue for positive change. And I've seen positive change come from my words, if only in people becoming more informed and understanding the whole story (or at least more of the story), and that, I think, helps all of us (including you) become more open-minded.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Remember the days when it was the BOM that was so "awful"? Then it was how bad women were treated. Now the antis have landed on "polygamy". It has to be the most ridiculous complaint of all of them.

I don't see any of these polygamy discussions as a "crusade," but merely discussion and debate on a major point of LDS history. Why shouldn't it be discussed? Or, for that matter, why shouldn't the BofM be discussed, or the treatment of women be discussed? All very relevant topics, among a myraid of others. Isn't that what this bb is for?

[rameumptom]

Ben,

From one Morg-bot to another, thanks for your rant. I totally agree with it. I was wondering if I could use it as part of my .sig?

I also think that many like Rollo and Scottie are blowing lots of wind (use a breath mint, man!) Most members don't really care whether Joseph was married to many women or not. If they have a testimony of him, that's all that matters.

I can pick apart all of the major patriarchs and prophets in the Bible, and end up with a miserable lot of frauds. Is that going to change the minds of the vast majority of Christians? No. Why not? Because they don't base their testimonies of Christ on the history of the Bible.

So it is with Mormonism.

Gary

[Scottie]

It must really bother some people like Scottie and Rollie, to know that the vast majority of LDS members who encounter polygamy for the first time, simply do not experience this kind of response to "discovery". In fact, I generally get the impression that they believe that belief in Mormonism is irrational. And it it must be quite a puzzle for them why it is that there are those of us who are otherwise at least as informed as they are, who are seemingly intelligent, who apparently aren't rational.

It doesn't bother me in the least.

Believe it or not, I'm on the Church's side here.

With the small group of people I have encountered, when I tell them about JS & polygamy, it causes a pretty intense reaction. Most times, it just goes away. But there IS a reaction.

Perhaps you are right and the vast majority would just say, "Oh, that's interesting." But from the posts I've read here and on RfM, people ARE disturbed when they find this out. Again, this is far too small a sample to base such a large generalization on.

My argument is that it would be better for people to find out about this in a church setting where it can be discussed from the church's point of view. Not from someone stumbling across some anti-site and finding out from there.

There was a post from RfM many months ago (deleted by now, I'm sure), but the poster said she was trying to do some research for a talk in Sacrament. I don't remember what she was searching for, but it led her to a site that talked about JS' multiple wives. She brushed it off, but it ignited a small spark of doubt. She researched more on LDS websites and found out it was true. According to her account, it REALLY disturbed her and it caused her to wonder what other things the church was hiding from her. It damaged her testimony.

I know, I know...it's all out there and it is all her fault because she was just lazy and didn't read her history.

All I'm saying is that I believe there is a problem. Maybe it is a small problem, and like Ben said, the vast majority wouldn't even blink an eye when they found out. Maybe it is bigger than we know. Maybe with the internet being more and more used, the problem will grow.

[charity]

Scottie said, "Due to the reactions I get when I tell people that JS practiced polygamy and the posts I see here about how disturbed people are, I would say that it is a problem."

So, Scottie, do you lurk in social situations, sidle over to people, and whisper in their ears, "Pssstt, do you know (insert a sinister pause here) that Joseph Smith practiced (another sinister pause) POLYGAMY?" And then leer and chuckle, "You know that means intimate relations with someone other than his WIFE."

Maybe the disturbed reaction you get is in how you tell them. Since you are no longer a believer, I doubt polygamy comes up in a conversation where you are explaining eternal marriage, the sealing power, how God's commandments can be difficult to live, but how honest, followers of Christ will make every effort to fulfill God's commands to the best of their ability, even when they are asked to make great sacrifices.

Scottie, you really are a piece of work.

[Scottie]

So, Scottie, do you lurk in social situations, sidle over to people, and whisper in their ears, "Pssstt, do you know (insert a sinister pause here) that Joseph Smith practiced (another sinister pause) POLYGAMY?"  And then leer and chuckle, "You know that means intimate relations with someone other than his WIFE."

No. Like I said, my sample pool is EXTREMLY small. It has been a few friends and family. When we talk about why I left the church, I have to cite that JS' polygamy was a major factor. The response is usually, "JS didn't practice polgamy. That started with BY, and it was only because SOO many men died crossing the plains." To which I have to prove to them that JS did indeed practice polygamy. There is an initial shock when I do prove it to them.

Maybe the disturbed reaction you get is in how you tell them. Since you are no longer a believer, I doubt polygamy comes up in a conversation where you are explaining eternal marriage, the sealing power, how God's commandments can be difficult to live, but how honest, followers of Christ will make every effort to fulfill God's commands to the best of their ability, even when they are asked to make great sacrifices.

I don't think so, but I won't rule that out.

Scottie, you really are a piece of work.

Man, it is just open season on me lately. First Nephi rips me apart, now you??

Critics just aren't welcome here anymore, are they...even when they are trying to HELP the church!!

[Zakuska]

I think that LDS Church doctrine is so different from mainstream religious thought, that many feel that new members have to be gradually brought to the truth. I would compare it to swimming. You don't just jump in the middle of the lake, you start at the shore and move slowly and safely out to the deeper waters.

However, I have found it somewhat difficult talking about changes in Temple ceremony and the words that have/are being used. I have noticed that they "have" changed... to be more compatible with current situations. A example would be the oath of vengence, cutting one's neck. This is similar with Freemasonry. Freemasons/Masons used to take that same oath more seriously. Heck, there's historical evidence of Freemasons, extremists, actually killing Freemasons who broke their oath to keep the ceremonies and customs of Freemasonry secret. Another example of this would be the cause of the skism between the LDS Church and the Utah Grand Lodge of F&A Freemasonry until the latter end of the 20th century.

Intrestingly... DCP brought up some material which shows they made these same "oaths of vengence" in the 1st century church. It was on the JPII thread.

[charity]

Scottie, Help the Church? You have got to be kidding! Continually accusing the Church of hiding things, being embarrassed about its history, and deliberately damaging the testimonies of its members? That is helping?

And I think you should examine your reasons for leaving the Church. (I am not accusing you of leaving because you were committing sins and didn't want to conform to the Gospel.) But look at what the "polygamy issue" consists of: Some facts. Some falsehoods. Lots of speculation.

Some people look at the mix and say, "I may not know everything, but I am going to accept all my experiences of testimony from the Holy Ghost and trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and his life conformed to God's laws." Then they leave the "polygamy issue" where it belongs and go on to concentrate on living God's laws themselves.

Other people look at the mix, and say, "I may not know everything, but I am going deny my experiences of testimony from the Holy Ghost and choose to believe that Joseph Smith was a liar and I am going to leave the Church." Then they take the "polygamy issue" and try to tear the Church down, some of them even while professing that all they are trying to do is help.

Won't wash, Scottie. Since you had the choice, as described above, it seems to me you decided to leave the Church, and then hung it on a handy peg.

[Scottie]

Scottie, Help the Church?  You have got to be kidding!  Continually accusing the Church of hiding things, being embarrassed about its history, and deliberately damaging the testimonies of its members?  That is helping?

Yes, I AM trying to help here. I am NOT an anti-mormon. I believe the church does a lot of good for a lot of people. It helps a LOT of people be better people. If this issue is causing problems, then I think it should be addressed in a church setting when JS' polygamy can be discussed in a proper church context.

Are you denying that they ARE hiding polygamy?

And I think you should examine your reasons for leaving the Church.  (I am not accusing you of leaving because you were committing sins and didn't want to conform to the Gospel.)  But look at what the "polygamy issue" consists of:  Some facts.  Some falsehoods.  Lots of  speculation.

I never said polygamy was THE reason I left the church. I said it was a big one.

I said this before, but from my point of view, if I look at polygamy from the mindset that God commanded it, there are tons of holes that I can't resolve. If I look at polygamy from the mindset that JS was a man abusing his powers to gain sexual licence, it all makes sense.

Some people look at the mix and say, "I may not know everything, but I am going to accept all my experiences of testimony from the Holy Ghost and trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and his life conformed to God's laws."  Then they leave the "polygamy issue" where it belongs and go on to concentrate on living God's laws themselves.

If I had ever received this testimony, perhaps I could say this. As it is, I am one of the poor schlums left to rely on history and common sense.

If most Mormons do act this way, then I am completely wrong and there is no problem. I'm just relating my experiences.

Won't wash, Scottie.  Since you had the choice, as described above, it seems to me you decided to leave the Church, and then hung it on a handy peg.

Do you really think you choose what you believe? Even if I wanted to go back, I don't think I could just decide to believe again. It just doesn't work like that.

I have had a paradigm shift. I see things from outside the Mormon church and a LOT of it doesn't make sense, unless you go with the option that JS made it up. I can't just shelve it all like you do.

Now, that being said, I will admit that there is a lot that doesn't make sense from outside either. There are evidences for the BoM and Mormonism in general, and I accept these as evidences. For me, it just isn't enough to counter the evidence against.

[BCSpace]

The Bible is not very forthcomming with history.  It's chok full of faith promoting stories and we have only very few of all the words the prophets and apostles ever spoke from the veritable pulpit.  Especially lacking are their opinions on various and sundry matters of the time.

Thus, according to 'wife's' logic, I declare the Bible to be nothing more than a whitewash. 

BC Space, I always found the bible to be pretty colourful, particularly the Old Testament!!!!! I don't think there is too much of a white wash there. How much of it is God and how much is a group of men writing out their recollections and opinions I don't know. It's an imperfect document.

Moses was a murderer, Abraham a potential child killer, Noah - incest, God - a merciless killer of men, women and children, and so forth.

Yes, but how many Christians actually know that? Not very many. And thus it is shown that yet another antiMormon tactic actually invalidates the Bible.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

1. I have never said that members' discovery of heretofore unknown polygamy details cause a "testimony-breaking" experience. Quite the opposite is true, imo, for I find that many TBM's are easily able to brush off troubling issues from Church history with the typical "we don't know everything now, and God will explain it all in the next life" explanation -- cognitive dissonance can be very handy for those who choose to believe no matter what.

Of course you didn't say this. I never suggested that you did.

I am also absolutely certain that you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is. Many of the critics abuse this term.

A cognition is the knowledge that a person has of something. Suppose you are playing with a red ball. The fact that you know the ball is red is a cognition. Then, I come along and comment on how nice your green ball looks. You now have a second cognition - that I believe that the ball is green. These two cognitions stem from contradictory states - that is, the ball is not both green and red. If the two cognitions are weighted equally, this might create cognitive dissonance. Which is to say, that if you valued my opinion as much as your own on determining the way you view reality, you would experience congnitive dissonance. However, in the absence of other factors, most people do not hold their own experiences to worth the same as the experience of others. Which is to say, you are going to trust your own eyes over mine. So, cognitions generally have weight associated with them, and most conflicts never reach the level of cognitive dissonance since a weightier cognition will always trump a not-so-weighty cognition.

The weight of the cognitions in this example could be affected by any number of other issues - and most cognitions exist within a web of related cognitions. Suppose, for example that you (or I) were colorblind, and you were aware of this, and so had a cognition to that effect. (Yes, this is a bad oversimplification of color-blindness). If you were red-green colorblind, and knew it, you might suspect, for example, that what you thought was a red ball was really a green ball. This might give the second cognition more weight - and might even allow you to conclude that the ball was really green. In the case of religion, if the second cognition came from an authoritative figure, it might be given more weight, if you knew that I was colorblind, you would certainly give the second cognition less weight and so on. Only when the weights of the cognitions are equal does it create a problem in which you cannot decide automatically, which way to go.

Generally, cognitive dissonance, if it occurs at all, is resolved instantly. A state of cognitive dissonance is highly uncomfortable. It is usually resolved by changing cognitions or changing behavior or some other change - and the change is necessitated by the increasing discomfort of the cognitive dissonant state. People do not exist in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance without being deeply (and visibly) disturbed.

So, the notion that God will resolve it in the next life isn't cognitive dissonance. It is a cognition that may carry (for some) a great deal of weight and allow them to simply ignore or dismiss other cognitions which might otherwise create dissonance. So, your suggestion shows that you clearly have very little idea of what cognitive dissonance is, although this may simply be a terminology problem. Cognitive dissonance theory explains why believers can ignore things without experiencing cognitive dissonance, although how this makes cognitive dissonance useful to a believer isn't quite clear. Finally, people who develop multiple related cognitions begin to give this system of cognitions weight - and eventually, without dealing with these cognitions, they can become weighty enough to overtake the opposing cognitions and create cognitive dissonance forcing a change. And this is sometimes what happens when people leave the church.

Hopefully this made some sense to you.

2. I do not believe that a belief in Mormonism is "irrational." I'm a believer myself (albeit in ways perhaps different from typical TBM's, but a believer nonetheless), and view myself as quite rational.

We can debate this point all we want - but my experience with you in particular in your frequent contributions on the internet leads me to believe otherwise. I am not sure that I would categorize you as a believer. Nor am I certain that you believe that the beliefs of the TBMs are even rational. I point above to your comment on cognitive dissonance (even though you improperly use the term) as it reflects this point of view.

3. I think I am open-minded, and have said several times on this bb that the DNA evidence, imo, does not conclusively disprove BofM historicity (of course, it doesn't support it, either). Nevertheless, the DNA evidence is just another among a pile of evidences that do not support BofM historicity, which is why I believe it can be troublesome to many members (and why FARMS and other apologists are attacking it with such vehemence).

I disagree with you. It isn't so much what you say - it is your repeated statments and behaviour which suggest otherwise.

4. I deal mostly wtih very faithful and believing LDS; I rarely participate on RfM, and spend most of my Internet time here, where believers far outnumber the critics and ex-LDS.

To be quite frank, I don't like your presence here. Your presence in particular on ZLMB was one of the reasons why I quit frequenting that forum except very rarely. You are nearly entirely negative in your approach to all things Mormon. You tend to dwell on the negative, and highlight the negative. And the fact that you participate on RFM (and that they welcome you there) is simply another indication to me of what you represent. So, no, I don't think that you are interested in positive productive discourse with TBMs, and this drives my comments.

5. My comments here are never intended to trivialize you or anyone else in the Church, but rather, to discuss freely and openly issues relating to Mormonism. I, too, and faithful; I, too, am a believer; I, too, am aware of a great deal of the history, both favorable and unfavorable; I, too, don't need an apologetic for everything. That said, however, I don't see any reason why every issue and event in Church doctrine and history shouldn't be discussed in a forum such as this. Where I think change would be beneficial, I use my voice and influence to argue for positive change. And I've seen positive change come from my words, if only in people becoming more informed and understanding the whole story (or at least more of the story), and that, I think, helps all of us (including you) become more open-minded.

Of course you don't intend to trivialize - but that is my whole point. I don't think that it even occurs to you that you are - or that you might be - simply because your worldview is identical with the one that you so openly criticize. If you disagree with my perception of you, it is okay, but realize that I don't agree with your characterization of your on-line behaviour. And I will reiterate that I don't view your arguments as positive or as useful.

Ben

[Sheelah]

Scottie, in the small part of California that I occupy I have yet to even find anyone that has even heard of FAIRS, run across anyone with any issues of polgamy or if I mention it look at me like its any big deal. Please don't try and think your little world is by any means the *norm.*

[Scottie]

Scottie, in the small part of California that I occupy I have yet to even find anyone that has even heard of FAIRS, run across anyone with any issues of polgamy or if I mention it look at me like its any big deal. Please don't try and think your little world is by any means the *norm.*

Fair enough.

More and more it appears that I am completely wrong and my little subset was an anomoly. It would appear that most members either already know, or when they find out are unphased. Good enough for me.

[Rollo Tomasi]

To be quite frank, I don't like your presence here. Your presence in particular on ZLMB was one of the reasons why I quit frequenting that forum except very rarely. You are nearly entirely negative in your approach to all things Mormon. You tend to dwell on the negative, and highlight the negative. And the fact that you participate on RFM (and that they welcome you there) is simply another indication to me of what you represent. So, no, I don't think that you are interested in positive productive discourse with TBMs, and this drives my comments.

...

If you disagree with my perception of you, it is okay, but realize that I don't agree with your characterization of your on-line behaviour. And I will reiterate that I don't view your arguments as positive or as useful.

1. An excellent explanation of what I mean by "cognitive dissonance" and its relation to Mormon beliefs can be read in Bob McCue's paper at this link (starting around page 38 or so):

http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/d...nism%20true.pdf

Read and learn.

2. I'm glad you know and understand my beliefs better than I do -- your confidence in this regard speaks volumes for the confidence you exude in other areas.

3. You don't like my presence here? Darn .... I caused you to leave ZLMB? Darn ... again. Like I've said before, I only try to "give the other side of the story," the one members won't read in the Ensign or hear in Gospel Doctrine class. If you see this as only "negative," then I submit you have become addicted to a sugarcoated diet with it comes to Mormonism. Try some variety; you may like it.

4. I participate on RfM about as often as you participate on ZLMB, which is rarely. The fact that I am "welcomed" there or anywhere is flattering.

5. We all have different viewpoints, and this doesn't trivialize either side. You can characterize me and my arguments all you want, but it is no more than your opinion -- I have my own opinions about you and your arguments. As I've said to you many times before, if you dislike my posting so much, then simply don't read them. It's an easy solution that should resolve your deeply-held qualms about me.