How Many People Are Currently Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues?

[cartoon bluejay]

So, this is what I have from another post:

My personal addition to this is the concept of "instinct". How and why do we have it? Could it not just be the residue of some past experience? Or some past experience of our bodies?

At the same time, I do believe that Adam is the literal son of God. I think evolution may have been used for some things, but not Adam. And I do prescribe to the intelligent design theory. So, I believe in irriducible complexity, but so far as evolution goes, mostly God tweaking things.

Okay I read the first article you suggested - and I really liked it. It has given me a lot to think about. I have something to bring up but you'll have to forgive me because it would be... There is a person behind the words that are being typed and I would like a chance to think out loud - sometimes I don't get my ideas across and what I'm typing may not be exactly what I'm thinking. So with that being said - here it goes...

I didn't leave the church for historical reasons and I don't really have a problem mixing religion and evolution. Sometimes people in religion and science both deal in absolutes - I don't think that's wise. I think I might be having a problem reconciling the statement that the church is the only true and living church with the idea that it is an evolving church. Along with that, there is the scripture D&C 20:12 "... he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen." Also, D&C 20:5 "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.", which was in reference to JS organizating the church and saying that the words of JS should be received as from the mouth of God. People have been taught that the words of the prophet are words from God. I know that the prophets are men and they aren't perfect and I don't expect them to be. When statements from previous prophets need to be revised by current prophets - it suggests that the church is evolving - which in my mind is wonderful. It might just be a good idea to embrace that - I seem to have it in the back of my mind somewhere that there have been comments made to suggest that the church is not a changing church or a changing gospel. When God is revealing truths to prophets - why is something true for one generation but not for another? Like blacks and the priesthood. Are we then to conclude that someday women will have the priesthood or that homosexuals will be able to be married? Really I don't think we can conclude anything along those lines - but we do have to accept that there will be changes.

I left the church for my own evolution - if that makes sense. I didn't make anything conclusive about stepping away from it. I didn't think I was leaving a church that was a fraud - but in trying to correct or develop my own spirituality I've been introduced to some ideas that suggest that JS was a fraud. It's intelligent, it's convincing. I'm trying to sort it all out in my mind - so thank you for your information.

[California]

I might be having a problem reconciling the statement that the church is the only true and living church with the idea that it is an evolving church. Along with that, there is the scripture D&C 20:12 "... he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen." Also, D&C 20:5 "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.", which was in reference to JS organizating the church and saying that the words of JS should be received as from the mouth of God. People have been taught that the words of the prophet are words from God. I know that the prophets are men and they aren't perfect and I don't expect them to be. When statements from previous prophets need to be revised by current prophets - it suggests that the church is evolving - which in my mind is wonderful.

I have come to understand that God gives only what we are capable of receiving, whether it be as a people, or as individuals. Why give the law of Moses only to have it changed afterward? Why give the Blacks the priesthood after keeping it from them? Why have the Word of Wisdom all of a sudden?

In regards to the Law of Moses, Moses came down from Sinai and saw that the people were not ready for the law he had just received, and so God gave him a different law, one that they could handle. After the coming of the Christ, again, the people were given more. Regarding Blacks and the priesthood, I personally think that the people of the Church were too rascist to put up with it. Joseph gave some Blacks the priesthood, and Brigham didn't. I think it's important to note that Brigham didn't hold the same sway with the people. Also, when Kimball announced that Blacks could have the priesthood, many LDSs picketed temple square, calling him a fallen prophet. I think it might have been much worse before the 70s, it might even have halved the church so far as numbers go. And the word of wisdom, like everything, even the young Christ learning, things come line upon line, precept upon precept.

I think it is completely possible to reconcile the fact that THE LORD does not change, while HIS CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE IN HIS CHURCH do change.

To put it on individual grounds, why is it that God only appears to His prophets? Or mostly, anyways. Because they are prepared to receive such a vision, and the accountability that goes along with that.

[charity]

He was ordained to the first quorum of the Seventy in 1888, then served as church historian from 1901 until his death in 1933. 45 years is a long time to go without a paycheck.

You just made my point.

"Some things that are true aren't very useful."

So, you are saying that all people who receive a paycheck from the Church are the same lying, hypocrits that Southerton is?

[Pahoran]

1) B.H. Roberts (LDS Church Historian)

2) Leonard Arrington (LDS Church Historian)

Not after 1982.

3) Davis Bitton (Assistant LDS Church Historian)

Not after 1982.

Your point?

Who signed their paychecks?

What difference does that make?

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that these men would prostitute their opinions for money, as your hero and role model Grant Palmer did. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that it is a projection of your own character. Well "Thinking," unlike you, there are people of integrity in this world, and especially in this Church. Please note that both Arrington and Bitton had long and distinguished academic careers after they left Church employ, and they continued to maintain and proclaim their faith in the founding events of the Restoration throughout their lives.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not after 1982.

Not after 1982.

Your point?

What difference does that make?

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that these men would prostitute their opinions for money, as your hero and role model Grant Palmer did. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that it is a projection of your own character. Well "Thinking," unlike you, there are people of integrity in this world, and especially in this Church. Please note that both Arrington and Bitton had long and distinguished academic careers after they left Church employ, and they continued to maintain and proclaim their faith in the founding events of the Restoration throughout their lives.

Regards,

Pahoran

Nah, Pahoran, I'm sure Brother Bitton included a firm testimony in the obituary he wrote for himself as a sort-of "wink wink, thanks for the millions and millions" to the Church.

[Thinking]

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that these men would prostitute their opinions for money, as your hero and role model Grant Palmer did. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that it is a projection of your own character. Well "Thinking," unlike you, there are people of integrity in this world, and especially in this Church. Please note that both Arrington and Bitton had long and distinguished academic careers after they left Church employ, and they continued to maintain and proclaim their faith in the founding events of the Restoration throughout their lives.

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that Grant Palmer is my hero and role model. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that you like to assume as much as you accuse others of assuming. You are just careful to not use the word assume but instead use words like "conclude."

Oh, by the way, since the Church has a long history of not disclosing everything, it is not asinine to assume that recent or current church historians are any different.

[Pahoran]

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that Grant Palmer is my hero and role model. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that you like to assume as much as you accuse others of assuming. You are just careful to not use the word assume but instead use words like "conclude."

The evidence lies in your asinine assumption that nobody else has any more integrity than he and you do.

Oh, by the way, since the Church has a long history of not disclosing everything, it is not asinine to assume that recent or current church historians are any different.

Ah, our old friend damnation by association. Yes, all the most unthinking bigots rely upon it.

The fact is that Bitton has not been employed by the Church for over a quarter of a century. What could it do to his "paychecks" since 1982? What stopped him from blowing the whistle, from the safety of his academic tenure at a secular university, if indeed he had a whistle to blow?

Come on, "Thinking[sic];" grace us with the latest conspiracy theory. We are all waiting with bated breath!

Of course, by "a long history of not disclosing everything" I assume (does that make you feel better?) that you mean nothing more than "they don't daily take out full-page ads obsessing over every bit of trivia that anti-Mormons obsess over."

The alternative is to conclude that you are indulging the old "cover-up!" canard.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

MODS CAN WE PUT A MORATORIUM ON THE WORD "CANARD" PLEASE

[mms]

I have no idea why you would asininely assume that these men would prostitute their opinions for money, as your hero and role model Grant Palmer did. Since there is no evidence for that asinine assumption, I can only conclude that it is a projection of your own character. Well "Thinking," unlike you, there are people of integrity in this world, and especially in this Church. Please note that both Arrington and Bitton had long and distinguished academic careers after they left Church employ, and they continued to maintain and proclaim their faith in the founding events of the Restoration throughout their lives.

Regards,

Pahoran

I know I said I was done posting, here, and I have not been here for a few days and I really do not plan on further posts, but I have to ask a question that has been in my mind since I first posted. I still peruse the threads and in several instances, the thread will be going along just fine with people being mostly respectful of one another (even in disagreement) and then Pahoran shows up and it is as if he just starts swinging his fists in every direction and throwing in all manner of insults, such as those above regarding Thinking's "character" and "integrity." He generally does this unabated by the moderators.

So here is the question: Are those who generally agree with Pahoran's positions bothered by by his approach? None of you seem to have the courage to suggest he take a different approach, but I imagine you must know that his approach is totally inconsistent with what the Church teaches regarding interacting with those with whom we disagree. Anyone willing to speak up?

[Pahoran]

I know I said I was done posting, here, and I have not been here for a few days and I really do not plan on further posts, but I have to ask a question that has been in my mind since I first posted. I still peruse the threads and in several instances, the thread will be going along just fine with people being mostly respectful of one another (even in disagreement) and then Pahoran shows up and it is as if he just starts swinging his fists in every direction and throwing in all manner of insults, such as those above regarding Thinking's "character" and "integrity." He generally does this unabated by the moderators.

So here is the question: Are those who generally agree with Pahoran's positions bothered by by his approach? None of you seem to have the courage to suggest he take a different approach, but I imagine you must know that his approach is totally inconsistent with what the Church teaches regarding interacting with those with whom we disagree. Anyone willing to speak up?

Your mild-mannered approach may be ingratiating to some, mms, but there is something you fail entirely to notice.

I only took "Thinking[sic]" to task because he made assertions that effectively slander a number of highly respected people.

So, if I did not respond, would you be here posting innocent questions as to why no-one was "willing to speak up" in defense of those who are not here to defend themselves?

Or perhaps not?

AFAICT, the only surface difference between my criticism of "Thinking[sic]" and his criticism of three men who never once displayed any less integrity than he has is that I, unlike him, had the courage to take on someone who is in a position to fight back.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

AFAICT, the only surface difference between my criticism of "Thinking[sic]" and his criticism of three men who never once displayed any less integrity than he has is that I, unlike him, had the courage to take on someone who is in a position to fight back.

I'm curious. Does Grant Palmer post on this board? You said "I have no idea why you would asininely assume that these men would prostitute their opinions for money, as your hero and role model Grant Palmer did." Is he here to defend himself?

[Jaybear]

I only took "Thinking[sic]" to task because he made assertions that effectively slander a number of highly respected people.

Hmm. I was under the impression that you were a lawyer. I guess I was wrong.

A lawyer would have realized that, by pointing out that the three historians in question may have been employed by the LDS church, Thinking was not "slandering anyone" but he was simply identyfying the inherent bias that may have existed in their testimony. If they had been called as witnesses in a case against the LDS Church, any good lawyer would ask if they drew a paycheck from the LDS church. Its most certainly not slander. Its not even libel.

[cartoon bluejay]

I have come to understand that God gives only what we are capable of receiving, whether it be as a people, or as individuals.

I totally agree and what I'm about to say may or may not have anything to do this - but here it goes. Often times while reading the threads here, I have noticed that some have the belief that people who have left the church did so because they were like spoiled children and angry because God didn't give them what they wanted. Yet, God frequently adjusts for the people because they aren't ready for certain doctrines. Were the people of BY's time just spoiled because they didn't want to accept blacks having the priesthood? There's a real big part of me that wants to answer "yes". In my mind, a prophet of the Lord is a prophet of the Lord and as the leader of the church - you follow the counsel. It's a strange concept for me. I'm thinking of all the holes as I'm typing with my own arguments so - please know that I know. (you know?) Why couldn't BY say "hey- this is the way it is and if you don't like it - leave"? I think this can also be viewed on a personal level, it's disheartening to admit you're having some struggles and then are faced with the approach that you're just spoiled and didn't want to follow the Lord. When there are countless times the Lord adjusted for the people because they weren't ready - why not adjust for the individual? Do you think that some people can surpass the thinking of the church through their own spiritual evolution?

I was telling someone yesterday about the Law of Adoption - she's one of my TBM friends. She replied that it just didn't matter. But I think it does matter - the history matters. The frustrating thing is that this a typical response for someone who is questioning. Recently GBH stated that everything hinges on JS - so the history of JS matters. I've been told to study his life - this isn't to just accept it all - it's to study it out in my mind. Does everything have to go on faith? Is it so wrong to ask for some proof?

[California]

I know I said I was done posting, here, and I have not been here for a few days and I really do not plan on further posts, but I have to ask a question that has been in my mind since I first posted. I still peruse the threads and in several instances, the thread will be going along just fine with people being mostly respectful of one another (even in disagreement) and then Pahoran shows up and it is as if he just starts swinging his fists in every direction and throwing in all manner of insults, such as those above regarding Thinking's "character" and "integrity." He generally does this unabated by the moderators.

So here is the question: Are those who generally agree with Pahoran's positions bothered by by his approach? None of you seem to have the courage to suggest he take a different approach, but I imagine you must know that his approach is totally inconsistent with what the Church teaches regarding interacting with those with whom we disagree. Anyone willing to speak up?

It's hard to say. Christ didn't clear the Temple by going up to every money-changer and politely saying "Would mind taking your little operation down? Please?"

And God certainly didn't say "Tut Tut..." to the Egyptians as they pursued the Isrealites through the Red Seas.

I think that there is holy indignation. Like when antis use their nonsensical crap to attack the church.

[mms]

Your mild-mannered approach may be ingratiating to some, mms, but there is something you fail entirely to notice.

I only took "Thinking[sic]" to task because he made assertions that effectively slander a number of highly respected people.

So, if I did not respond, would you be here posting innocent questions as to why no-one was "willing to speak up" in defense of those who are not here to defend themselves?

Or perhaps not?

AFAICT, the only surface difference between my criticism of "Thinking[sic]" and his criticism of three men who never once displayed any less integrity than he has is that I, unlike him, had the courage to take on someone who is in a position to fight back.

Regards,

Pahoran

So your best argument for how you conduct yourself is "he did it first"? Last time I checked, that one does not fly from the Church's perspective. Apparently, no one is willing to speak up and admit that your continual attacks are not consistent with Church teaching. I do not believe that others' behavior is a valid excuse for ignoring the counsel of the prophets, from the Church's perspective. Why not admit that you simply have a weakness that you have not been able to overcome, as we all do, and that this weakness leads you to attack in a manner not consistent with trying to be like the Savior? Why try to defend the indefensible?

[California]

why not adjust for the individual? Do you think that some people can surpass the thinking of the church through their own spiritual evolution?

I think that He adjusts so far as the church as a whole will let him, I don't think that it's a personal thing. Maybe at the judgement some of that will go on, but so far as keeping order in His Kingdom on Earth goes, I think there need to be peramiters.

[Pahoran]

So your best argument for how you conduct yourself is "he did it first"? Last time I checked, that one does not fly from the Church's perspective. Apparently, no one is willing to speak up and admit that your continual attacks are not consistent with Church teaching. I do not believe that others' behavior is a valid excuse for ignoring the counsel of the prophets, from the Church's perspective. Why not admit that you simply have a weakness that you have not been able to overcome, as we all do, and that this weakness leads you to attack in a manner not consistent with trying to be like the Savior? Why try to defend the indefensible?

I agree that defending the indefensible is not going to work. Does this explain why you prefer to adopt a double standard and attack me instead of trying to defend those to whom you think I am being so terribly cruel? Is it because you know that their behaviour is, in fact, indefensible?

I don't find double standards very appealing, mms. Nor do I see any reason why I should allow you to be my guide in matters of faith and morals when you have yet to earn any trust or establish any credibility on such matters. When I see you puffing with righteous indignation at those who at all times give as good as they get--and in this instance, to those not capable of giving it back--and then I might think you've got something to say. As it is, you seem to be engaged in mere partisan special pleading.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

I think that He adjusts so far as the church as a whole will let him, I don't think that it's a personal thing. Maybe at the judgement some of that will go on, but so far as keeping order in His Kingdom on Earth goes, I think there need to be peramiters.

Okay. Who sets those parameters? God through the mouth of the prophets. People, myself included, really look to the counsels of the prophet. I don't expect the prophet to be perfect. But when addressing the church - I expect it to be accurate. I expect it to be divine counsel. I think personal opinions need to stay out of it. Was it you that mentioned the piercings? Obeying things that aren't necessary for the sake of obedience - takes it's toll. Eventually it does become too much. I also know how easy it is to get into history wars. If I look on sites that belong to critics - it slants their way. If I look on LDS sites - it slants the LDS way. I don't know how many people are leaving the church over historical issues but it seems to be a lot. I don't think I'm quite clear on both sides of the issue. When do we know when it's prophet personal opinion or divine counsel? (another thread - I know) It does make it difficult to sort through the history.

[Hammer]

Okay. Who sets those parameters? God through the mouth of the prophets. People, myself included, really look to the counsels of the prophet. I don't expect the prophet to be perfect. But when addressing the church - I expect it to be accurate. I expect it to be divine counsel. I think personal opinions need to stay out of it. Was it you that mentioned the piercings? Obeying things that aren't necessary for the sake of obedience - takes it's toll. Eventually it does become too much. I also know how easy it is to get into history wars. If I look on sites that belong to critics - it slants their way. If I look on LDS sites - it slants the LDS way. I don't know how many people are leaving the church over historical issues but it seems to be a lot. I don't think I'm quite clear on both sides of the issue. When do we know when it's prophet personal opinion or divine counsel? (another thread - I know) It does make it difficult to sort through the history.

Ear piercing or body piercing in excess isn't acceptable to God. He gave you this temple. He created it or organized it for you to use during this sojourn on earth. If you understand that whatever the body suffers, Christ suffers as well because He took all the pain and suffering upon Himself, then you realize two of the reasons this thing isn't condonable, why the prophet was given to teach us not to harm or deface our bodies.

They are temples of God. The Holy Ghost is supposed to reside in these bodies with us. Why would we graffitti up and tear apart that which is holy or SHOULD be holy?

If you have been born again, you have NO DESIRE to do anything evil or damaging--

[Abulafia]

I got a lot out of the whole article, but this paragraph gives me the most valuable instruction.

"Let's get one thing clear: There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our Church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote."

Surely any lay historian, who believes there are problems to confront, should find it extremely reassuring that the real historians can reconcile their faith and their knowledge of Church history.

Thanks Charity. That paragraph offered no help to me. Firstly he assumed that the only 'real' historians, those qualified to study Mormonism would be active and believing. That's just ridiculous. It's a really, really bad assumption.

Secondly there are a number of 'real' historians, a number of which have occassionally contributed to this board, who have come to rather different conclusions about the veracity of the many truth claims of the church.

Bitton states that there is 'nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud'. It may not require the conclusion, but it certainly points that way from where I am standing....

Bitton also uses, perhaps unintentionally, very emotive language for people who have come to a different conclusion. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith That's terrible language, and has no place or should have no place in his article.

It doesn't help me Charity. It's not balanced.

Mary

[Thinking]

Have you heard what Davis Bitton said? "I don't have a testimony of the history of the Church." You can find his presentation here. You would find it worthwhile reading.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...the_Church.html

Interesting.

"Since all history is affected to one degree or another by the faith position of the historian, I rejoice when any topic is treated by someone who is both a believer and a good historian. Ideally, the result will be so conscientious, willing to face the facts and consider the complexity of the events, that the resulting article or book will command attention. Let me say that I also welcome non-Mormon historians and will praise their works when they deserve it."

IOW, if the history puts the Church in a good light, then it's good history.

Now before I get blasted, read what Bitton says later.

"The evil-doers fume and fret, falling back on their tiresome tactic of labeling the work as apologetic. But if they are not brain-dead, what they are really thinking is, 'Hey, these guys are good. This is good history.' "

Yep. Anybody who disagrees with apologetic history is brain-dead.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting.

"Since all history is affected to one degree or another by the faith position of the historian, I rejoice when any topic is treated by someone who is both a believer and a good historian. Ideally, the result will be so conscientious, willing to face the facts and consider the complexity of the events, that the resulting article or book will command attention. Let me say that I also welcome non-Mormon historians and will praise their works when they deserve it."

IOW, if the history puts the Church in a good light, then it's good history.

Now before I get blasted, read what Bitton says later.

"The evil-doers fume and fret, falling back on their tiresome tactic of labeling the work as apologetic. But if they are not brain-dead, what they are really thinking is, 'Hey, these guys are good. This is good history.' "

Yep. Anybody who disagrees with apologetic history is brain-dead.

You've clearly never read a book by Bitton. You offer a strong opinion on him as a historian, though, based on this article. Of course, if I recall correctly you're the guy who doesn't like to put anything on the "backburner," so your hasty misjudgement isn't surprising.

[RDL]

No. You definitely did not.

There was no "sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc." Plural marriage was never about "sexual promiscuity." That such false accusations have been made, and you fell for them, means that you left over lies told by others.

A "first edition Mormon Doctrine" represents the opinion of no apostle. Just so you know.

Do you know the difference betwee "not accepting" and "outright rejecting and refusing to even consider the possibility?"

Into what? Anti-Mormon hate propaganda?

Cares about what? Factual accuracy?

Clearly you do not.

Regards,

Pahoran

You've never met me, spoken with me, you have no clue about my experience other than a few short sentences on a message board, and you're ready to diagnose why I made such an important decision as whether to adhere to Mormonism. Wonderful.

I didn't read anti-Mormon hate propoganda (although I've learned in subsequent years that much of it simply reports the unvarnished truth). I read parts of the Journal of Discourses. I read D&C 132 and really thought about what was written. I read the Pearl of Great Price and really thought about what was written. The doctrinal racism (as I perceived it to be) was sickening to me. Joseph Smith's unabashed threats to Emma's eternal soul if she didn't abide his philandering was sickening to me. What I later learned of institutional racism of LDS leaders was sickening to me. When I realized Joseph Smith was a devoted freemason (and so as not to offend people here, I'll just say I'm sure you know what I mean), I was sickened. I made the conscious choice not to devote my life to a church with such a history, after much hard work, and prayer, and an affirmative desire to believe.

That was on my mission, and I left the church "in spirit" before I returned from England, never having broken the Work of Wisdom, never having broken the law of chastity, but merely being shocked into realizing early Mormon leaders were what they were, and that the early doctrine was what it was. Everything I've learned since, Kinderhook, money-digging, different versions of the "first vision," etc... has just affirmed what I felt about 15 years ago, which is that the Mormon church and its leaders are not inspired.

So Pahoran, feel free to discount, call me a liar, doubt my motivation, doubt my "worthiness," etc... Surely what I've reported above cannot be true.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You've never met me, spoken with me, you have no clue about my experience other than a few short sentences on a message board, and you're ready to diagnose why I made such an important decision as whether to adhere to Mormonism. Wonderful.

I didn't read anti-Mormon hate propoganda (although I've learned in subsequent years that much of it simply reports the unvarnished truth). I read parts of the Journal of Discourses. I read D&C 132 and really thought about what was written. I read the Pearl of Great Price and really thought about what was written. The doctrinal racism (as I perceived it to be) was sickening to me. Joseph Smith's unabashed threats to Emma's eternal soul if she didn't abide his philandering was sickening to me. What I later learned of institutional racism of LDS leaders was sickening to me. When I realized Joseph Smith was a devoted freemason (and so as not to offend people here, I'll just say I'm sure you know what I mean), I was sickened. I made the conscious choice not to devote my life to a church with such a history, after much hard work, and prayer, and an affirmative desire to believe.

That was on my mission, and I left the church "in spirit" before I returned from England, never having broken the Work of Wisdom, never having broken the law of chastity, but merely being shocked into realizing early Mormon leaders were what they were, and that the early doctrine was what it was. Everything I've learned since, Kinderhook, money-digging, different versions of the "first vision," etc... has just affirmed what I felt about 15 years ago, which is that the Mormon church and its leaders are not inspired.

So Pahoran, feel free to discount, call me a liar, doubt my motivation, doubt my "worthiness," etc... Surely what I've reported above cannot be true.

This is one of the reasons Bushman wrote Rough Stone Rolling; to make more of the little-known bits of information on Joseph Smith known, no surprises. I recommend, even though you have apparently departed from the faith, to read RSR anyway; it's a great book.

[Free Agent]

This is one of the reasons Bushman wrote Rough Stone Rolling; to make more of the little-known bits of information on Joseph Smith known, no surprises. I recommend, even though you have apparently departed from the faith, to read RSR anyway; it's a great book.

While it may be a good book, I think for many of us it is too little, too late. We wish this stuff had been on the table from day one. Very conveniently, when the frying pan is getting a little hot, the Church is now starting to gradually address these issues, because they know members are leaving. While that may be a step in the right direction, it still does not assuage the many of us who were blindsided by numerous items that should have been upfront all along.

Free Agent