Exit Or Not

[emeliza]

What about Emma? Didnt she complain? Does she not count? What about their husbands? Did they know, does it not matter to you if they were not told, or had complained? You don't think putting pressure on a 14 year old girl to enter into a secret marriage with God's "prophet" is any way unethical or immoral, or troublesome?

When it comes to how an investigator would process the facts about JS marrying teenage girls and married women, do you think your experience is the exception or the rule?

Yes, Emma complained, but she did stay with Joseph. I also believe I said generally the people complaining not always. I haven't yet read anything about the husbands complaining, but there is still much to read and cover. From the few accounts I have read, the husbands were often involved if they were members of the Church. I don't know it all and won't pretend to. You can't cover the entire Church history in a short period of time, but the question shouldn't be whether or not to follow the arm of flesh, it should be about following God. Which is why I state if you question things, pray on it (assuming you believe in God).

My experience is an exception to joining after reading all the information as a convert. I never said it was the norm. I was explaining it does happen though. Most people can't get past the bad to see the good. I think people get hung up on history instead of living in the present and aiming towards the future. The past can be a very powerful weapon. Remember your past, but don't live there.

[Free Agent]

GRW -

I am in the same boat as you it seems. A convert of 23 years and learning things about the history that were never taught to me, and to be clear, are things that the Church does not like to dwell on but things that we can't deny happened. Some people can accept it, some can't. My issue is one of integrity. I cannot proclaim the Gospel to be true anymore because I don't have that deep, abiding faith in the Joseph Smith story of the Restoration anymore. I sometimes think the tragedy here is that our church authorities through the years made decisions to keep things quiet, to not dwell on them. So, now, for many of us, finding out these things has not only shocked us all because we didn't know about them, but in addition, causes us to wonder why the Church just couldn't be honest about the history.

Good luck as you sort this out. It is a personal decision that depends on many variables.

[why me]

GRW -

I am in the same boat as you it seems. A convert of 23 years and learning things about the history that were never taught to me, and to be clear, are things that the Church does not like to dwell on but things that we can't deny happened. Some people can accept it, some can't. My issue is one of integrity. I cannot proclaim the Gospel to be true anymore because I don't have that deep, abiding faith in the Joseph Smith story of the Restoration anymore. I sometimes think the tragedy here is that our church authorities through the years made decisions to keep things quiet, to not dwell on them. So, now, for many of us, finding out these things has not only shocked us all because we didn't know about them, but in addition, causes us to wonder why the Church just couldn't be honest about the history.

Good luck as you sort this out. It is a personal decision that depends on many variables.

And what exactly did you discover that shook your testimony? I suppose that the church should have all converts read Rough Stone Rolling and then if they still want baptism, then baptize away. What should the church teach all converts? Should missionaries give history lessons about the church? Or just concentrate on the doctrine? Should we advise to read the Tanners or someother anti literature? What would you like to be changed?

Regardless of your shaken testimony the book of mormon has not been proven false. And so what is the problem?

[blueadept]

And what exactly did you discover that shook your testimony? I suppose that the church should have all converts read Rough Stone Rolling and then if they still want baptism, then baptize away. What should the church teach all converts? Should missionaries give history lessons about the church? Or just concentrate on the doctrine? Should we advise to read the Tanners or someother anti literature? What would you like to be changed?

Regardless of your shaken testimony the book of mormon has not been proven false. And so what is the problem?

I use to have issues about how LDS missionaries went to dominantly Catholic locations and went about getting converts. I guess I had issues about how they didn't supply the 'whole' story from my perspective. When I read how LDS did baptisms for the dead for prominent Catholic leaders such as JPII, I took initial offense. Then I learned the RCC's viewpoint of some of these baptisms.

In regards to baptizing the the dead, RCC's viewpoint is that they are wasting their time, here's a list, knock yourself out.

Mother Teresa went about finding dying Hindus to feed and clothe them. Of course most of them ended up dying but they had that 'free ticket,' baptism, given to them. How well did they know of why they were being baptised. I'm guessing, not much.

I'm aware of a couple of summers where members of the Legion of Mary would 'blitz kreig' SLC for converts. They didn't see any problem with this.

So in answering your question of what should be changed before allowing converts to be baptised, I don't think anything should be changed. It's not the missionaries job to produce the 'negative' evidence of the church. It should be the investigators job to ask any troublesome issues until they are satisfied with the answers.

[Free Agent]

Why me -

My testimony has been shaken in a number of things, all of which have been discussed on this board in numerous ways (i.e. multiple versions of first vision, BoA, polygamy...). Whether or not the Book of Mormon has been proven true or not is irrelevant to me. Belief in the Bible and the BoM require faith. We can't prove them 100 percent. However, I had faith that both were true, as was my religion. But that faith in the Mormon church was based on the information available to me at the time I converted. Now, informa-tion comes out that I've never heard about and in my life (and obviously the lives of many others) it makes a difference. I don't feel like the entire truth was given to me. How the Church wants to deal with what they have the missionaries teach isn't my decision. If they want to continue on the path they are on, and teach "milk before meat" and talk around questions that investigators have, then it may lead to disillusioned people like me.

[KevinG]

In your opinion then, should I remain a member of the church, since I do not believe in most of the basic doctrines of the church? I ask sincerely, and not sarcastically.

Is it more important to believe correctly (from your perspective), or to live correctly? Or are the two inseparable--i.e., by believing incorrectly (again, from your perspective), am I then living incorrectly?

I ask because I find that the line between "loyal heretic" and "hypocrite" can be very thin indeed, and I am interested in the perspective of others.

If you aren't lying to people about your standing then you aren't a hypocrite. I have absolutely no problem with someone who is a perpetual investigator, sympatheic non-believer, curious spouse or other variation on that theme as long as they are up front. It isn't really anyones business by your own families what your status is anyway. We aren't to speculate when someone passes the sacrament plate or declines to say a prayer.

When and if someone is stealth in order to quietly turn others away then its a problem.

Does that make sense?

[Mighty Curelom]

I think CDowis remarks were spot on regarding the LDS being well versed in the basic doctrines of their religion and didn't understand why you would have countered that point.

Oh yes, Mormons are well versed in "basic doctrines." They know Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true, and Jesus died for them, and families can be together forever in Heavenly Father's plan. I'm not disputing that at all. But most Mormons don't know that Joseph was a money digger. They don't know that he married other men's wives. They're completely unaware of the fact that the Book of Abraham papyri have nothing to do with Abraham. They're totally ignorant of the fact that Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles in the BoA are completely wrong. They don't know that the BoM is riddled with anachronisms, or that it quotes KJV scriptures long before those scriptures were even written.

You might pass these things off as minor and insignificant, but they aren't. They directly impact the foundational premises on which the LDS religion is based. If they didn't, apologists wouldn't bother refuting them.

[KevinG]

Oh yes, Mormons are well versed in "basic doctrines." They know Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true, and Jesus died for them, and families can be together forever in Heavenly Father's plan. I'm not disputing that at all. But most Mormons don't know that Joseph was a money digger. They don't know that he married other men's wives. They're completely unaware of the fact that the Book of Abraham papyri have nothing to do with Abraham. They're totally ignorant of the fact that Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles in the BoA are completely wrong. They don't know that the BoM is riddled with anachronisms, or that it quotes KJV scriptures long before those scriptures were even written.

You might pass these things off as minor and insignificant, but they aren't. They directly impact the foundational premises on which the LDS religion is based. If they didn't, apologists wouldn't bother refuting them.

Please cite a study where Mormons demonstrated their knowledge or lack therof on these subjects. You have done a lot of throwing facturds on the wall lately hoping they would stick. The reason apologists refute these things is that they are over reported as central to our message (which they aren't) and under-understood due to choice phrases like "money digger" and such.

I just got back from the LDS bookstore in Atlanta where RSR was sold out because of the high demand for it, and several people and I talked about how excited we were that Bushman treated some of these oft spun charges in a straightforward manner. It was hardly a gathering of fringe LDS folk or TMBs wallowing in darkness.

I was learning about these controversies in institute over a decade ago prior to internet ministries and discussion forums. In fact there was only a single instance of a guy I knew who left the Church over apologetic issues who I actually knew in real life- and he was upset that the Church wouldn't fund his research into anti-mormons. Perhaps Dr. Shades can do a study on internet apostates vs. chapel apostates?

[Deborah]

You might pass these things off as minor and insignificant, but they aren't. They directly impact the foundational premises on which the LDS religion is based. If they didn't, apologists wouldn't bother refuting them.

I do pass them off as minor and insignificant especially when those who spout these things do not have the whole story or choose not to tell it.

[Free Agent]

Deborah,

Those of us who do not find certain items referenced earlier as "minor and insignificant" should not be assumed to "not have the whole story, or choose not to tell it". I'm a little confused by what you mean. There certainly is controversy re: polygamy, BoA, first vision account/s, etc. which is why apologists even exist. What is minor and insignificant to you is not to everyone and many of us, even though we have gotten the whole story cannot dismiss these items to the degree that you do.

[Deborah]

I'm a little confused by what you mean. There certainly is controversy re: polygamy, BoA, first vision account/s, etc. which is why apologists even exist. What is minor and insignificant to you is not to everyone and many of us, even though we have gotten the whole story cannot dismiss these items to the degree that you do.

I do not have a problem with polygamy, First Vision accounts or the Book of Abraham. Polygamy has been part of history since OT times and its practice in the latter days was part of the restoration of all things. I do not have an issue with it or all the stories about Joseph Smith which are based on hearsay accounts or not having the full story, which I don't think any of us do at this time. The arguments over the First Vision accounts are just silly, and the fact that they do vary is more a testament to their truth than if each account matched perfectly. We all relate things with a different perspective depending on time and place. I don't understand the issue with the Book of Abraham, because when I read it I find it inspiring and ringing of truth and whether Joseph translated it from papyri or simply received revelation, it is a true depiction of some very important gospel truths.

[Free Agent]

Deborah,

You make my point very clearly. Two people can see the same information and it effects them very differently. I'm glad that you can accept and make peace with the items myself and others take issue with. What is minor to you, or a non-issue, is on the other end of the spectrum for me. I guess I take things very literally. If I pick up the Book of Mormon and read the heading of the BofA it very clearly states it is a translation by Joseph Smith of the papyri. OK, easy enough. But, wow, 23 years later of believing it was simple Joseph Smith translating this with the miraculous help of the Lord, I now find out there are all these convoluted apologetic reasonings on why it doesn't match up. I never knew it didn't match up. I never knew the controversy. Maybe you did, maybe you were brought up with it. I think there is a huge learning curve between lifelong members and converts. Things talked about in families vs what is talked about at Church. I am just trying to figure it out. Sometimes, the tone of those who emphatically believe tends to belittle those of us who are honestly trying to balance faith with truth.

[Matt Andrews]

Please cite a study where Mormons demonstrated their knowledge or lack therof on these subjects. You have done a lot of throwing facturds on the wall lately hoping they would stick. The reason apologists refute these things is that they are over reported as central to our message (which they aren't) and under-understood due to choice phrases like "money digger" and such.

I just got back from the LDS bookstore in Atlanta where RSR was sold out because of the high demand for it, and several people and I talked about how excited we were that Bushman treated some of these oft spun charges in a straightforward manner. It was hardly a gathering of fringe LDS folk or TMBs wallowing in darkness.

I was learning about these controversies in institute over a decade ago prior to internet ministries and discussion forums. In fact there was only a single instance of a guy I knew who left the Church over apologetic issues who I actually knew in real life- and he was upset that the Church wouldn't fund his research into anti-mormons. Perhaps Dr. Shades can do a study on internet apostates vs. chapel apostates?

DaddyMO

(By the way, I only recently realized you'd changed your screen name. It's unfortunate it had to happen the way it did, (people can be real jerks without knowing it), but I am pleased to see you are still around.)

I'm sure there aren't any studies showing LDS knowledge of various issues, and I fear the only kind of study that would get funded from either side would be biased, and/or be viewed with suspicion by the intended study sample.

So we are left with anecdotal evidence.

I can say that no one, not one person, in my wife's extended family or mine had any idea that there was any truth at all to the claim that Smith was a "treasure hunter" or "money digger". (You can fairly object to the terms, of course, but that doesn't change whether people are aware of the stories behind the terms.) Same goes for BoA, polyandry, and BoM issues. Not to toot our horns or anything, but we were intelligent, highly educated, and highly active members of the church. All the boys served missions. Several of us graduated from BYU. We had no idea at all until one of us, (me) stumbled on to some of it quite by chance.

Of course we were all from Utah. Born and raised. I think an LDS bookstore in Atlanta attracts a much group of people with very different experiences with these things than the average member from the intermountain west.

But my experience is every bit as anecdotal as yours, and I'm sure your perception based on your experience is accurate, too.

[KevinG]

DaddyMO

(By the way, I only recently realized you'd changed your screen name. It's unfortunate it had to happen the way it did, (people can be real jerks without knowing it), but I am pleased to see you are still around.)

I'm sure there aren't any studies showing LDS knowledge of various issues, and I fear the only kind of study that would get funded from either side would be biased, and/or be viewed with suspicion by the intended study sample.

So we are left with anecdotal evidence.

I can say that no one, not one person, in my wife's extended family or mine had any idea that there was any truth at all to the claim that Smith was a "treasure hunter" or "money digger". (You can fairly object to the terms, of course, but that doesn't change whether people are aware of the stories behind the terms.) Same goes for BoA, polyandry, and BoM issues. Not to toot our horns or anything, but we were intelligent, highly educated, and highly active members of the church. All the boys served missions. Several of us graduated from BYU. We had no idea at all until one of us, (me) stumbled on to some of it quite by chance.

Of course we were all from Utah. Born and raised. I think an LDS bookstore in Atlanta attracts a much group of people with very different experiences with these things than the average member from the intermountain west.

But my experience is every bit as anecdotal as yours, and I'm sure your perception based on your experience is accurate, too.

The problem with not at least attempting to take an objective look at why people leave is that we get ignorant stereotypes on both sides. I view the "most people who leave do it because of sin" theory with as much disdain as MCs assertions. I don't think either are very valid, and MC being the big science guy I would assume he'd be more careful with his anecdotes. But I guess objectivity is for Athiests only in his book.

[Dale]

Deborah,

You make my point very clearly. Two people can see the same information and it effects them very differently. I'm glad that you can accept and make peace with the items myself and others take issue with. What is minor to you, or a non-issue, is on the other end of the spectrum for me. I guess I take things very literally. If I pick up the Book of Mormon and read the heading of the BofA it very clearly states it is a translation by Joseph Smith of the papyri. OK, easy enough. But, wow, 23 years later of believing it was simple Joseph Smith translating this with the miraculous help of the Lord, I now find out there are all these convoluted apologetic reasonings on why it doesn't match up. I never knew it didn't match up. I never knew the controversy. Maybe you did, maybe you were brought up with it. I think there is a huge learning curve between lifelong members and converts. Things talked about in families vs what is talked about at Church. I am just trying to figure it out. Sometimes, the tone of those who emphatically believe tends to belittle those of us who are honestly trying to balance faith with truth.

I am not sure the explanations for the Book of Abraham/papyrus problem are that convoluted. You are correct Joseph Smith saw himself as innerantly translating the papyrus with the help of the Lord. If his translation is not innerant then maybe Joseph Smith got carried away. People tend not to question the prophet, so they never questioned his translation. so they never repeated anything, but the simple unquestioned claim.

Some of us believe a degree of inspiration was present in Joseph's speculative writing. Enough that some of us think that the text itself has support in ancient apocrypha & a degree of support from Egyptology.

[Hammer]

The problem with not at least attempting to take an objective look at why people leave is that we get ignorant stereotypes on both sides. I view the "most people who leave do it because of sin" theory with as much disdain as MCs assertions. I don't think either are very valid, and MC being the big science guy I would assume he'd be more careful with his anecdotes. But I guess objectivity is for Athiests only in his book.

I find that the Spirit is essential for staying in the church. The lack therefore could be consistantly used as a reason for all who leave.

This is doctrine not stereotyping. Read the NT. Read what leads people off track. It happens the same way today.

[GRW]

And what exactly did you discover that shook your testimony? I suppose that the church should have all converts read Rough Stone Rolling and then if they still want baptism, then baptize away. What should the church teach all converts? Should missionaries give history lessons about the church? Or just concentrate on the doctrine? Should we advise to read the Tanners or someother anti literature? What would you like to be changed?

Regardless of your shaken testimony the book of mormon has not been proven false. And so what is the problem?

That's an excellent question. My first, cynical thought is of this Monty Python sketch about an odd box of chocolates:

Milton:

We use choicest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds whipped into a fondue and garnished with lark's vomit.

Praline:

Lark's vomit?

Milton:

Correct.

Praline:

Well it don't say nothing about that here.

Milton:

Oh yes it does, on the bottom of the box, after monosodium glutamate.

Praline:

(looking) Well I hardly think this is good enough. I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large red label warning lark's vomit.

Milton:

Our sales would plummet.

But more realistically, I don't think it's so much what is taught, but how. Defenders of the church often remind us doubters that "no one ever said prophets were perfect." Well, it may be that you did not learn the gospel from 19-year-old idealists, and it may not be that your only experience with Mormon prophets is in church and conference. But I can tell you--and yes, I am ashamed of my naivite--that in my case, I was most definitely taught that prophets, and especially Joseph, were very near perfect.

So my suggestion would be to tone down the hagiographic movies, pamphlets, pictures and lessons. Of course, it may not be such an issue these days, because of the internet. For me, there really was nowhere to go to get another look at the church.

[GRW]

I find that the Spirit is essential for staying in the church. The lack therefore could be consistantly used as a reason for all who leave.

I absolutely agree with this, though I'm sure not in the same way. One must believe that the good feelings--burning in the bosom, etc.--one gets from spiritual experiences are a confirmation of truth that come directly from God.

The difference is not that I no longer feel these things--I most definitely do, in church at times but mostly in other times and places. The difference is that I no longer believe these feelings are a reliable measure of objective truth.

As I alluded to elsewhere, my confrontation with my own doubts has been the most spiritual experience since I was a young member of the church, and I feel closer and more connected to God now than I ever have.

[GRW]

Dang it. I meant to reply also to why me's statement that the Book of Mormon has not been proven false.

That is a matter of perspective. It has been proven false to my satisfaction. When I personally look at the evidence for (its content, chiasmus, Lehi's Trail, etc.) and the evidence against, it's not even close. I see the evidence against as overwhelming. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But only an unjust God would punish me for acting in good conscience and sincere faith.

In any case, that it has not been proven false seems like a remarkably weak defense for what is supposed to be the most correct book on earth. It has much more going for it than a lack of proof that it is false.

[Deborah]

That is a matter of perspective. It has been proven false to my satisfaction. When I personally look at the evidence for (its content, chiasmus, Lehi's Trail, etc.) and the evidence against, it's not even close. I see the evidence against as overwhelming. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But only an unjust God would punish me for acting in good conscience and sincere faith.

Another example of how differently people see the same evidence. You say the evidence against the BOM is overwhelming but I find the evidence against it as conjecture, lack of understanding or missing information and therefore of no significance. The question is why do people see the same things and yet interpret them with diametrically opposed conclusions? I've asked this same question about other things, such as politics. How can two people hear a political speech and get two opposite messages, while both sides get extremely frustrated at each other? It really does come down to our life choices and the direction we have chosen to move.

[Hammer]

I absolutely agree with this, though I'm sure not in the same way. One must believe that the good feelings--burning in the bosom, etc.--one gets from spiritual experiences are a confirmation of truth that come directly from God.

The difference is not that I no longer feel these things--I most definitely do, in church at times but mostly in other times and places. The difference is that I no longer believe these feelings are a reliable measure of objective truth.

As I alluded to elsewhere, my confrontation with my own doubts has been the most spiritual experience since I was a young member of the church, and I feel closer and more connected to God now than I ever have.

You are speaking to the wrong person when you claim that these are what having the Spirit is all about. God is real. When He speaks through the Spirit there is no room for doubt or wonder -- He is truth after all.

I believe if you don't rely upon what you receive it is because you have never really received. I remember once receiving a verbal answer to a direct question while I was walking down the street, and the profound feeling I received with that answer stayed with me for months. Even to this day I can't deny that what I experienced came from my creator.

Of course I have also received the burning of the bosom and other traditionally recognized confirmations but they always held such a powerful after effect that I lived differently, more fervantly than before and felt sorrow for sin immediately rather than having to think through and have a desire to reationalize my sins.

So really I can't agree with you statements.

[GRW]

You are speaking to the wrong person when you claim that these are what having the Spirit is all about. God is real. When He speaks through the Spirit there is no room for doubt or wonder -- He is truth after all.

I believe if you don't rely upon what you receive it is because you have never really received.

First, I don't recall ever making any claims of knowing what "having the Spirit is all about." All I can speak to is my experience and what I perceive and feel.

Second, this kind of response is the greatest weakness of the belieivers' argument, in my admittedly human opinion. On the one hand, when the Spirit speaks, there is no room for doubt. On the other, those who DO end up doubting must never have felt the Spirit.

In other words, you've offered up a double-bind--there is no way to argue against your point, making it rationally and logically unsound. Worse, it is spiritually unsound, for if there is no room for doubt, there is no room for faith.

Moroni's promise is the same kind of double-bind. If you pray for truth, God will tell you the Book of Mormon is true. If you don't get the right answer, you are either not pondering, not sincere or not grateful.

For me, accepting and embracing the possibility, even probability, that I'm wrong about a great many things has been liberating and faith-enhancing. Certainty is overrated.