MrShorty

Even though I don't think that was an example they used, that's the kind of thing MRM was bemoaning in the essay I mentioned. They were clearly bothered by the many examples of "1 -- Christian witnesses to Mormon (using whatever 'gotcha' or prooftext or gimmick or even well reasoned issue). 2 -- Mormon deconstructs not only Mormonism but Christianity and maybe theism altogether." It's hard for me to understand the "naive LDS" example like you shared here, because I am currently so far removed my naive days as a member of the church. If I were faced with that situation, I would probably agree that there are problems with the Book of Abraham, and different ways LDS might reconcile it (lost manuscripts or catalyst theory or whatever). I might suggest that this is where we could all (LDS-Christian and non-LDS-Christian) talk a little bit more about "resilient" faith. In a world where faith deconstruction is a real thing as people disaffiliate from Christianity and religion, perhaps we all need to talk more about how to talk about our differences of belief in ways that both encourages critical thinking and encourages staying true to faith in some way. Which is why I would much prefer to have a conversation like this with someone who not only wants to understand how I retain faith in spite of issues like the Book of Abraham, but also would want to share how they retain faith in spite of issues with their chosen religion/denomination. While we're talking about how I wrestle with LDS specific cognitive dissonances, how does the Evangelical deal with cognitive dissonance around Biblical inerrancy? How does the Catholic deal with issues like Papal decrees that don't reflect modern sensibilities? How do any of us deal with universal issues like the problem of evil? I find that these are the types I want to engage with. Someone who is clearly just out to present a "gotcha" issue in hopes of destabilizing my faith, who has no interest in talking about the ways that their own faith is unstable, is not interesting to me.

I can't say why, but, back on my mission in my first encounters with these kinds of Evangelicals, I immediately felt like their main interest was that they would be happier to see me be atheist than Mormon. It was a few years ago that I ran across an essay by Mormonism Research Ministry (MRM) that said essentially the same thing. They were concerned that Christians were putting too much effort into deconverting Mormons without given them good reasons to convert into Biblical Christianity. Based on that one essay, I think the reason is something unintentional. I expect that most Christians assume that, if they can convince someone to deconvert from the LDS church, it will be automatic for that person to drift into broader Christianity. Statistically speaking, I don't think the assumption is born out. Many LDS when the deconvert, prefer to join the "nones" or move into agnosticism/atheism. "Never" is a pretty strong word. I doubt I could say "never." However, so much of the root of my "faith crisis" is rooted in prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy that I doubt I could join any that insist on believing some kind of Biblical inerrancy. I can see branches of Christianity that have a better handle on Biblical errancy than others, and those would be the ones I would be attracted to. I would say secular critics. I might need an example of what you have in mind here. Personally, I think my response will depend on the specific issue. Some issues, I would probably agree with the critic, while I would disagree on other issues. A lot of my response would probably depend on whether my counterpart seems interested in exploring truth and right and goodness, or they might seem solely interested in contradicted whatever I might believe. I would say no effect. Unknown.

If it helps to take this out of the hypothetical into the real, Laurie Lee Hall in her recently released memoir talked about her bishop who refused to convene or participate in disciplinary proceedings against her. She was still excommunicated, but she made a very specific point of noting that her bishop at the time refused to participate. In the spirit of "do what is right, let the consequence follow," if this bishop's stance is the right thing to do, then I hope the bishop has the courage to stick with his pronouncement, even in the face of significant outside pressure from leaders and neighbors. In the spirit of humility and repentance, if this bishop's stance is wrong, then I hope he will have the courage to humble himself and repent. Of course, the hard part of this really is knowing what is right and wrong.

Obviously getting a long ways away from the OP, but I find this accusation interesting. According to the board guidelines, this forum is for I don't know what constitutes "testimony strengthening dialogue," but it seems to me that "substantive, civil discussion" can strengthen testimony just as easily as it can weaken testimony. I am reminded of the oft quoted statement from Pres. J. Reuben Clark, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." I doubt life and faith and truth are as dichotomous as all that, but I think it is valuable for my faith to have substantive, civil discussion with a variety of people of differing faith and beliefs. That said, some of my investigation has "harmed" previously held beliefs. Polygamy and "celestial marriage" -- the main topic of the OP as it relates to Pres. Taylor's 1886 "revelation" -- is certainly one of those topics where some of what I used to believe was true has been harmed, but I think such inquiry gets me closer to truth. Having the ability to wrestle with the nuances around these topics makes my faith in core principles (like the goodness of God and the atonement of Christ) more resilient. I don't think I would find this same resilience in an "echo chamber" where nobody dared challenge belief. I guess at the end of the day, nobody is forced to participate here. If someone wants a "fluff" discussion board where people post soundbites and all of the comments are some variation on, "Amen," those exist out there. I like that this group has regulars who are willing to challenge my testimony so that my testimony can grow (even when that means discarding previously held beliefs).