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

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

I should add I am a younger man, but I only learned a small handful of new information about Joseph Smith in the book. Bushman's sources have been around for ages.

[moriancamur]

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.

Hi everyone. A topic I have wanted to join in on but simply have not had the time. Here we are on page 15 and still fuelling emotions. This topic is an enormous minefield, with more than one route to take and so many believing their way is the safest one, sometimes attributing one form of vice or another to anyone without the vision they have.

RDL and others, I truly feel for your situation and the astonishing and unjustifiable view you see of certain elements of History in the church. All common logic proves there are serious flaws in claims. The logic we are taught in science and phsycology.

Pahoran, Life on a Plate and others, I know you probably feel blessed that your testimony is sure. Your conviction proven by your obedience and the Spirit within you that guides shows God approves of your faith. Only those who never knew or with spiritual discernment clouded in sin could allow any piece of history or fact displace the enormous weight on the positive side of the scales.

I have been in both groups. In the first I was forced to deny spiritual experience. In the second, logic. Once I knew the facts I could not exist in the latter, relying on my spiritual experiences I could exist in the former. Can one overide the other entirely. For me it can't. I have to satisfy both. My spiritual experiences include ones that cannot be explained by logic and provide me with undeniable truths of the existence of God and His interest in us, including as members of this church.

It has taken much study of the development of religion, theology, history and also much prayer to come to my present understanding, in which for me, I have found a place that brings peace and reconciliation between the two sides. If you are happy wherever you are, fine. If not, its worth the struggle. Like passing through the eye of a needle, all things are possible for God! It can only be done with His help.

[California]

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

Does it really matter if they were upfront all along or not? You have to take responsibillity for what you have now, and not blame your apostasy on anybody else.

[California]

Hi everyone. A topic I have wanted to join in on but simply have not had the time. Here we are on page 15 and still fuelling emotions. This topic is an enormous minefield, with more than one route to take and so many believing their way is the safest one, sometimes attributing one form of vice or another to anyone without the vision they have.

RDL and others, I truly feel for your situation and the astonishing and unjustifiable view you see of certain elements of History in the church. All common logic proves there are serious flaws in claims. The logic we are taught in science and phsycology.

Pahoran, Life on a Plate and others, I know you probably feel blessed that your testimony is sure. Your conviction proven by your obedience and the Spirit within you that guides shows God approves of your faith. Only those who never knew or with spiritual discernment clouded in sin could allow any piece of history or fact displace the enormous weight on the positive side of the scales.

I have been in both groups. In the first I was forced to deny spiritual experience. In the second, logic. Once I knew the facts I could not exist in the latter, relying on my spiritual experiences I could exist in the former. Can one overide the other entirely. For me it can't. I have to satisfy both. My spiritual experiences include ones that cannot be explained by logic and provide me with undeniable truths of the existence of God and His interest in us, including as members of this church.

It has taken much study of the development of religion, theology, history and also much prayer to come to my present understanding, in which for me, I have found a place that brings peace and reconciliation between the two sides. If you are happy wherever you are, fine. If not, its worth the struggle. Like passing through the eye of a needle, all things are possible for God! It can only be done with His help.

You sound a lot like Ruski. You're making more sense this time around, however.

Do you know what Deism is at all? Deism is where God does not care about people at all, because he does not talk to them. He leaves them to their own devices and hopes for the best.

[cdowis]

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.

I would not interpret his words in that way. I don't think he makes that assumption at all.

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.

Of course, and in our discussions, we have questioned those conclusions. Personally, I am not particularly impressed with Dan's conclusions. I see serious issues, for example, with his source control, where he accepts , in my opinion, very questionable sources, and making very broad generalizations while ignoring other statements which contradict his conclusions.

You can decide for yourself, of course, but I personally just do not see how he can justify them on the evidence.

[cdowis]

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

I think, frankly, that "the church" was busy with other things besides worrying about those who lose their testimony over church history issues.

Pres. Benson addressed their concerns very nicely when he told us, READ THE BOOK OF MORMON. If the BOM is scripture, the rest is petty details.

[Thinking]

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.

Wow! I read the article posted by charity, make comments, and then I'm criticized for not reading the book by the same author. That's like sending your child to the store to buy milk, and when he returns with the milk asking why he didn't buy bread also.

[battlefieldboy]

I think, frankly, that "the church" was busy with other things besides worrying about those who lose their testimony over church history issues.

Pres. Benson addressed their concerns very nicely when he told us, READ THE BOOK OF MORMON. If the BOM is scripture, the rest is petty details.

Which again brings us full circle. If Joseph Smith's history (church history) leads one to believe that he isn't a prophet of god then the logical conclusion is that everything he brought forth in a religious sense is also false.

Either you view church memberhip spiritually where you just accept things because it makes you feel good OR you view the church logically where parts of its history don't add up in the way the church has presented them which may lead the learner of that information to believe that the church had purposefully deceived them.

I will agree that there is strong feeling on both sides of the issue. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wow! I read the article posted by charity, make comments, and then I'm criticized for not reading the book by the same author. That's like sending your child to the store to buy milk, and when he returns with the milk asking why he didn't buy bread also.

Wow! One article isn't Davis Bitton on the whole. I'm not criticizing you for "not reading the[the?] book," I'm criticizing your assessment of Bitton as a historian. Now he's a poor, whitewashing historian, who defends? the LDS church merely to collect a paycheck. Get a grip, brother.

[cdowis]

Which again brings us full circle. If Joseph Smith's history (church history) leads one to believe that he isn't a prophet of god then the logical conclusion is that everything he brought forth in a religious sense is also false.

If that is the approach that you want to take, you can certainly do so.

Ignore reading the BOM, focus on his story both Mormon and antimormon versions and decide which version of JS's story you accept. Read about the witnesses, read about the translation process of the plates, read about his history.

Then decide what you think a prophet does. How would a prophet act in certain situations == how would he translate plates or would he just write the story without any reference to golden plates, what would he do in writing his history, how would he organize his religion. Decide if he is a fake or a prophet by your own criteria of what constitutes a prophet, how he would act.

And again, in this process, completely ignore the BOM. Do not pray to God, but use your own wisdom and common sense, your life experiences, your philosophy of life, to make a decision, not some "spiritual testimony by the spirit".

Yep, you can do that.

Either you view church memberhip spiritually where you just accept things because it makes you feel good OR you view the church logically where parts of its history don't add up in the way the church has presented them which may lead the learner of that information to believe that the church had purposefully deceived them.

No feel good thing here. Just pure logic and common sense.

I will agree that there is strong feeling on both sides of the issue. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

One small comment. My testimony has nothing to do with "just a good feeling". It is based on a certain knowledge.

And that is why we will agree to disagree.

[BishopRic]

I'm new to the forum here, and thought I'd make a brief comment regarding this subject. First, to give a very brief background, I am a former LDS member, born in the church, mission, temple marriage, Mo-tab, bishopric (and short time acting bishop), high councilor...who left over historical issues about 10 years ago.

Concisely, having been on both sides, I find that people tend to judge "the opposition" by their own paradigm. We see the world and others through our own unique lens. It's natural, and I believe those that find the most peace and happiness in life are those that recognize that others might have very different desires and priorities than they do. I am not gay, nor have I understood the "same sex attraction" that many of my good friends have. Today I don't see that as a problem...we are just different; I am no better or worse than my gay friends.

As it relates to Mormon history, when I delved into my research, I found many LDS apologists to frequently use the term "anti-Mormon" for anybody that challenged the status quo story. That's quite humorous to me today, as a reasonable analogy (today) might be that a person who claims that Mattel might be selling toys with toxic paint is "anti-Mattel." They may in fact be very pro-Mattel, and by the whistle-blowing may be ultimately improving the company by demanding integrity and safety of the product.

As weird as it may seem to many here, I see most scholar historians such as Palmer and Quinn to be just that. I know each of them personally (Palmer more than Quinn), and find them to be quite sincere in their desire to bring the historical truth out, and bring the church into integrity. I'm quite sure neither of them want the LDS church to go away -- as they see a great good in its core purpose and teachings. I agree with them there.

But I have seen on the apologist's sites much ad hominum attacking towards these (and other) scholars. The attacks served to push me towards my disbelief, as I felt that the issues and teachings could stand on their own if they were true, without the personal attacks so common. I admit similar tactics are used by some towards the church. It is helpful and ultimately the only honest approach to look past the labels and attacks to get to the core issues...and even then, the conclusion one draws may be correct for that person -- or not. Subsequent studying and life experience will either confirm or challenge the decision, and we are always able to change our mind. That usually comes with honest, compassionate friendship of others, without conditional acceptance of your belief. At the end of the day, most of us are doing the best we can with what we have been given.

[battlefieldboy]

I'm new to the forum here, and thought I'd make a brief comment regarding this subject. First, to give a very brief background, I am a former LDS member, born in the church, mission, temple marriage, Mo-tab, bishopric (and short time acting bishop), high councilor...who left over historical issues about 10 years ago.

Concisely, having been on both sides, I find that people tend to judge "the opposition" by their own paradigm. We see the world and others through our own unique lens. It's natural, and I believe those that find the most peace and happiness in life are those that recognize that others might have very different desires and priorities than they do. I am not gay, nor have I understood the "same sex attraction" that many of my good friends have. Today I don't see that as a problem...we are just different; I am no better or worse than my gay friends.

As it relates to Mormon history, when I delved into my research, I found many LDS apologists to frequently use the term "anti-Mormon" for anybody that challenged the status quo story. That's quite humorous to me today, as a reasonable analogy (today) might be that a person who claims that Mattel might be selling toys with toxic paint is "anti-Mattel." They may in fact be very pro-Mattel, and by the whistle-blowing may be ultimately improving the company by demanding integrity and safety of the product.

As weird as it may seem to many here, I see most scholar historians such as Palmer and Quinn to be just that. I know each of them personally (Palmer more than Quinn), and find them to be quite sincere in their desire to bring the historical truth out, and bring the church into integrity. I'm quite sure neither of them want the LDS church to go away -- as they see a great good in its core purpose and teachings. I agree with them there.

But I have seen on the apologist's sites much ad hominum attacking towards these (and other) scholars. The attacks served to push me towards my disbelief, as I felt that the issues and teachings could stand on their own if they were true, without the personal attacks so common. I admit similar tactics are used by some towards the church. It is helpful and ultimately the only honest approach to look past the labels and attacks to get to the core issues...and even then, the conclusion one draws may be correct for that person -- or not. Subsequent studying and life experience will either confirm or challenge the decision, and we are always able to change our mind. That usually comes with honest, compassionate friendship of others, without conditional acceptance of your belief. At the end of the day, most of us are doing the best we can with what we have been given.

Probably the most well thought, best expressed idea in this whole thread. Thank you for sharing that with us Bishop-Ric.

[California]

I'm new to the forum here, and thought I'd make a brief comment regarding this subject. First, to give a very brief background, I am a former LDS member, born in the church, mission, temple marriage, Mo-tab, bishopric (and short time acting bishop), high councilor...who left over historical issues about 10 years ago.

I am curious as to why you still post on forums like these?

[cartoon bluejay]

That was beautifully written - thank you!

[karl61]

Probably the most well thought, best expressed idea in this whole thread. Thank you for sharing that with us Bishop-Ric.

I totally agree, but wait until he takes a couple hits from selek or pharon .

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am not gay, nor have I understood the "same sex attraction" that many of my good friends have. Today I don't see that as a problem...we are just different; I am no better or worse than my gay friends.

Not sure where that came from.

As it relates to Mormon history, when I delved into my research, I found many LDS apologists to frequently use the term "anti-Mormon" for anybody that challenged the status quo story. That's quite humorous to me today, as a reasonable analogy (today) might be that a person who claims that Mattel might be selling toys with toxic paint is "anti-Mattel." They may in fact be very pro-Mattel, and by the whistle-blowing may be ultimately improving the company by demanding integrity and safety of the product

This is assuming there actually is lead paint. In Mattels case, it is conclusive. For the LDS Church it isn't.

But I have seen on the apologist's sites much ad hominum attacking towards these (and other) scholars. The attacks served to push me towards my disbelief, as I felt that the issues and teachings could stand on their own if they were true, without the personal attacks so common.

Why didn't ad hominem attacks against the gospel and its leaders push you towards belief? I would like to note, there has been ad hominem attacks on both sides; but in several reviews I have read, which were accused of containing ad hominem attacks, they very much did not. Especially in the case of Grant Palmer. Pointing out a persons flawed methodology or dishonesty is relevant. This cuts both ways, too.

Subsequent studying and life experience will either confirm or challenge the decision, and we are always able to change our mind. That usually comes with honest, compassionate friendship of others, without conditional acceptance of your belief. At the end of the day, most of us are doing the best we can with what we have been given.

I think it will both confirm and challenge. That's life!

[BishopRic]

I am curious as to why you still post on forums like these?

...and I am curious as to your question. (not really, just sparking thought)

For many of us post-Mormons, we get that sort of question daily...and as I said before, we all act as if others think the same way we do. I suppose many active Mormons have the attitude that if you learned beyond doubt that "the church was false," you would move on...never to deal with church issues again. Somehow, that would be the "healthy" thing to do. It would also project that we have no doubts in our un-testimony...and that continuing to discuss church issues is a sign that we still have doubts about our decision...and perhaps we even still have that spark of a testimony somewhere hiding deep in our hearts...?

Just a guess.

Reality is that there are many (and varied) reasons some of us continue discussions about the church, through various avenues. Some are openly proselytizing to de-convert...with the same zeal we had as missionaries to convert. Most here would understand the concept "once warned, we should warn others...."

That's not me. I live in Salt Lake. I am surrounded by good LDS members. They are my friends. They are my family. And they certainly have a degree of influence in my government and culture. So you might say that if we ignore it, it's a form of denial. Also, with the upbringing I've had, it is therapy to discuss new thoughts as they occur...the post-Mormon thinking is quite different than before, and I think it is healthy to have open discussions about "things" in life.

But I will admit the strongest driving point I have is a desire to bridge the great divide between all of us here. I have a goal to have a neighborhood BBQ where we have half Mormons, half non -- where you might be drinking a coke, and I my beer, and we don't notice the difference.

[BishopRic]

I totally agree, but wait until he takes a couple hits from selek or pharon .

If a person needs to attack another, I hope it is good therapy for them. I'm quite confident and peaceful in my belief system today, and don't feel the need to attack others with a different faith.

But thanks for the warning...I'll put my armor on!

[Free Agent]

Does it really matter if they were upfront all along or not? You have to take responsibillity for what you have now, and not blame your apostasy on anybody else.

Apostasy is a really strong word, one that you may think will instill fear in me regarding my eternal salvation, which it doesn't, btw. Its amazing to me that you think it doesn't matter if they were upfront. To me, its all about integrity. Not only do I feel that by not sharing the entire story a lack of integrity was shown, and to me that really matters, in addition, in order to keep my integrity intact, I can't believe and share the testimony I had for 26 years, because it was founded on half the story. Spiritual witness or not, I take comfort in knowing that what I felt was real, based on the information at hand. I respect if you and many others can maintain your testimonies knowing the whole story, however, I would expect integrity as well on your part, and to ask "if it really matters or not?" shows me that you may not understand fully the definition of that very important characteristic.

Free Agent

[Free Agent]

But I will admit the strongest driving point I have is a desire to bridge the great divide between all of us here. I have a goal to have a neighborhood BBQ where we have half Mormons, half non -- where you might be drinking a coke, and I my beer, and we don't notice the difference.

Welcome. Your thoughts are exactly mine in your 2 posts so far, however, you are much more eloquent. I think one of the best ways to bridge that gap, which will take time, is open, honest, respectful communica-tion. It is very hard for LDS to not point their fingers. I was guilty of it so much, and yet now being on the other side, I feel my world has opened up to include all the people before I may not have included because I wasn't comfortable with them. And that's me, I'm not saying LDS as a rule can't handle a BBQ with a beer drinker, but for many, it is just weird and awkward, and thats too bad. They may be missing out on some beautiful friendships.

Free Agent

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I totally agree, but wait until he takes a couple hits from selek or pharon .

I guess you can see for your self how vile Pahoran and Salek are. I realize vile is my word, however you are trying to convey a message that Pahoran and Salek like to sling mud. Maybe I'm wrong.

[BishopRic]

Not sure where that came from.

It's an example many of us heterosexuals can relate to, I think. I, as a heterosexual male have no attraction to another male...but that doesn't mean a gay man does not. Similarly, what constitutes a spiritual experience to an active Mormon may be different than a spiritual experience of a Buddhist. I personally think it IS quite arrogant and naive to believe that "my experience is more spiritual than yours!" Tell that to the Muslim extremists that are strapping bombs to themselves to perform an act that they have confidence (and their own spiritual confirmation) the event will send them straight to God.

This is assuming there actually is lead paint. In Mattels case, it is conclusive. For the LDS Church it isn't.

I disagree. I may have come to a different conclusion than you, but Joseph either had the vision or he didn't. He either translated the plates by the gift and power of God, or he didn't. And so on. Admittedly, there is a lot of fluff out there clouding the historical truth, but we're talking history, and with intensive study and research, we can come to a conclusion with confidence, I believe.

Why didn't ad hominem attacks against the gospel and its leaders push you towards belief?

It did for a while. I was particularly offended by the Ed Deckers and Tanners for many years. I lumped everybody in that "anti-Mormon" category for a while. But then I learned that just as there are different styles of debate and approach here, there are the same degree on the "anti" side too. Then I tried to only look at the evidence of the issues.

I would like to note, there has been ad hominem attacks on both sides; but in several reviews I have read, which were accused of containing ad hominem attacks, they very much did not. Especially in the case of Grant Palmer. Pointing out a persons flawed methodology or dishonesty is relevant. This cuts both ways, too.

I was actually quite stunned at the flawed methodology of Hugh Nibley in much of his work (certainly another topic), so yes...cuts both ways.

I think it will both confirm and challenge. That's life!

Agreed!

[Tchild2]

I totally agree, but wait until he takes a couple hits from selek or pharon .

Its Judge Judy, nt Pahoran. I don't know if he deserves the moniker of "chief Judge", even if that chief judge of the BoM is imaginary.

Very thoughtful post BishopRic and welcome.

[Calm]

Why am I finding out this information from critics of the church? They have their documented sources and it looks like a cover up

Question---what documented sources are these that are not originally from the Church?

Also, for any issues with Helen Mar Kimball, I suggest you go to her own material in its complete form (several writings are posted on the internet) and not to the edit and commented upon versions. For example, many of the critical writings leave out what Helen states she was actually horrified about.

I've come here to get a balanced understanding because I admit right now I'm receiving information from sites that are critical of the church. I'm really not in the game of being critical of the church. ...

I'm not here to debate - I'm here to gain knowledge. So - if you have something you want to inform me of - please do so.

May I suggest you go to the FARMS and FAIR sites and read the articles and further research if supplied on any topic that interests you.

I would also suggest if possible reading The Mormon Experience by Arrington and Bitton, Arrington's Brigham Young bio and Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. These are excellent, imo, for giving not only a good overview of early church events and even more important development, but also the details. If you don't have access and don't want to buy them, then I suggest going to the ldsces.org site and reading the Church History Institute manual. While not as detailed in much of the personal stuff that went on...and it tends to not dwell on speculative issues where little info is known, it's very good, imo, for addressing the overall context of church history and doctrinal development.

If you are interested in later church history and development, Alexander's Mormonism in Transition is excellent in handling a number of important topics and the David O. Mckay bio by Prince and ? covers much material during that transitional time period.

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

2) Leonard Arrington (LDS Church Historian)

3) Davis Bitton (Assistant LDS Church Historian)

Who signed their paychecks?

Receiving a paycheck at one time didn't stop others from publishing material that was critical of the Church. At what point would you accept that money wasn't affecting significantly a historian's bias?

Other historians I can think of off the top of my head are Bushman, Givens, Susan E Black, Glen Leonard, R L Anderson, Richard Turley....

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.

I personally believes that God allows inaccuracy to enter into it because this draws the individual not to look at the counsels of the prophets as the end product, but merely as a step on the way to what God really desires of us--for us to seek out an encounter with the divine, a face to face with God. What better way to ensure this than for a requirement of knowing one is on solid ground being a need for confirmation of the Word of God from any source besides the Spirit.

I look on the counsel of the prophets, the scriptures, my day to day experiences, pretty much anything I pick up in my studies as sources from which to draw the questions and concepts I then bring to God to answer or confirm.

With the overreaching issue that all that we receive from anyone besides the Spirit is only (at the very best) a double interpretation of what they have received--first as they interpret when they form the words to communicate the experience and knowledge to us and second when we then interpret these words through our own filters of experience and knowledge and language, then the only real thing, IMO, that we can truly trust is the experience of the Spirit directly engaging our spirits without filters, without interpreters. Of course, after that experience we will then apply our filters and interpreters as we think back on it, but the core of the experience itself is something unique, a rock that we can build our testimonies, our lives around.

[T-Shirt]

As it relates to Mormon history, when I delved into my research, I found many LDS apologists to frequently use the term "anti-Mormon" for anybody that challenged the status quo story. (emphasis mine)

I would be interested in you showing examples of this. If they are "many" and "frequent" it should be easy.

As weird as it may seem to many here, I see most scholar historians such as Palmer and Quinn to be just that.

How many "scholar historians such as Palmer and Quinn" are there? Could you cite a few for us?

But I have seen on the apologist's sites much ad hominum attacking towards these (and other) scholars. The attacks served to push me towards my disbelief, as I felt that the issues and teachings could stand on their own if they were true, without the personal attacks so common. (emphasis mine)

This is a curious statement considering you went onto say this:

It did for a while. I was particularly offended by the Ed Deckers and Tanners for many years. I lumped everybody in that "anti-Mormon" category for a while. But then I learned that just as there are different styles of debate and approach here, there are the same degree on the "anti" side too. Then I tried to only look at the evidence of the issues (emphasis mine)

This doesn't make much sense. You say that ad hominem attacks by the critics were offensive and pushed you toward belief, but then you decided that this happens on both sides so it would be better to "only look at the evidence of the issues". But then you claim that ad hominem attacks by the apologists pushed you towards disbelief. Does anyone else see a serious contradiction here?

At the end of the day, most of us are doing the best we can with what we have been given.

This is part of the problem. Too many base their decisions on what they are given. Why don't they take some initiative a seek things out on their own? This is, after all, something the Church highly recommends.

T-Shirt