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

[Thinking]

For DNA, I think it comes down to the assumption that Lamanites are Native Americans. Many mormons have assumed this means they [book of Mormon people] contributed significantly to the gene pool, or even that they were the principal or only source of Native American stock. For people who believe that*, what you said about proof is right.

You have to recognize there are also those (like Pahoran -- they're in the majority here) who think "Lamanite" is no more meaningful a term than "gentile". It's a spiritual label coined by their founding prophet and they don't expect it to correlate with any feature science can measure.

When they name your tribe in a patriarchal blessing, do they mean it as something that would show up in your DNA or your blood? No, I don't think so. They have a concept called "adoption" which says you can get a spiritual tribe assignment that has nothing to do with who your relatives were. Obviously that concept separates it from DNA inheritance. With the concept of adoption they (Pahoran et al) basically say that all the Maya and pre-Inca civilizations, plus whoever was farming the Amazon and grooming the forests of North America, all get to be adopted into the category of Lamanite. Maybe the Polynesians are counted here as well. The reason for this belief is because Joseph Smith taught it and leaders since him have affirmed it.

That Law of Adoption sure gets around!

Why was JS sealed to men? Law of Adoption

Why was JS sealed to other men's wives? There was no sex involved...Law of Adoption

Why doesn't Native American DNA match Israelite DNA? Law of Adoption

Can the Law of Adoption be used to explain other issues?

How is it possible that the Book of Abraham is scripture when the text doesn't match the papyrus? Law of Adoption...Even though the papyrus contain nothing more than the Book of Breathings, they are being adopted into the LDS scripture family.

How is it possible that the temple endowment really is inspired when is has so many masonic influences? Law of Adoption...The relevant masonic elements are being adopted into the endowment.

[charity]

California,

I can't speak for CartoonBlujay, but I can speak for myself being in a similar situation. My level of activity has decreased significantly because of historical issues, and not so much the finding out about them, although initially unsettling, it is as Cartoon said earlier that to some of us it feels like a cover-up, or omitting historical elements that aren't faith promoting. As far as why we just can't shut the door and be done with it, for me, I am mourning the death of the religion I knew, loved and devoted myself to completely from the time I was 19 until 43. I am realizing there is a whole subset of members who have known these historical issues and find a way to have a strong testimony despite that, but because for 20 plus years I built my testimony on the sanitized, faith promoting version, and I didn't delve further (I didn't know I needed to), then the position I find myself in now is that I need to go from Point A (previous testimony) to Point B (new, stronger testimony based on volumes of new information). It seems that many posters here want to just shove us out the door and not really try to feel out genuine pain at the predicament in which we find ourselves, and frankly, although it doesn't bother me, it is a disturbing trend I see.

Hope that helps.

Free Agent

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

I hope it helps get you to POint B.

[Abulafia]

Charity, how on earth would Bitton's article help in any meaningful way. I'm asking sincerely, because I read it and it didn't help me?

Mary

[LifeOnaPlate]

Charity, how on earth would Bitton's article help in any meaningful way. I'm asking sincerely, because I read it and it didn't help me?

Mary

Personally, it helped me see what the "weightier matters" are. It gave me more perspective on the proper role of history for my personal faith in God.

[charity]

Charity, how on earth would Bitton's article help in any meaningful way. I'm asking sincerely, because I read it and it didn't help me?

Mary

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.

[Hammer]

Truly those who have received from the Holy Ghost, the firm assurance of the truthfulness of the church and it's leaders would have little difficulty in putting errors of the past in the past.

We can't know anything really about what was going on back then-- in their hearts. How dare we pretend to know enough to judge.

[California]

Charity, how on earth would Bitton's article help in any meaningful way. I'm asking sincerely, because I read it and it didn't help me?

Mary

It has made a lot of sense to me. It did this because there are things that went on that were foibles of youth and innexperience for many, and yet God did work through these people, and the doctrine, not the history, is the fruit that came from it all.

[California]

I have something to add. The topic that was recently posted by Ruski Canuck that was a display of incensed nonsense seems to me to be like proselyting for a new church, a Church of Ruski. Where there is power only to the leader. Does it seem like some apostates are power-hungry to anyone other than me? Otherwise, why the anger and the determination to overthrow? Really, it's almost like a coup-de-etat.

There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false.

Amen sister!

[Anijen]

Are you really saying that the historical claims of the church are so obviously true that they are beyond question? No one could possibly leave over historical issues, either because they are unquestionably true, or because a testimony shouldn't be tied up with them anyway....sigh..in that way you would agree with Amantha then, who on his thread about it coming down to the warm and fuzzies, was saying the same thing. If you have a testimony there is no need for apologetics.

What a mind bind....

Of course we are asked to question from the very moment we listen to the missionaries. We should question every conference we listen to. We just don't follow blindly (or shouldn't). If the Church is true (and I believe it is) then all the testimonies learned and confirmed by the Holy Ghost is just that confirmed by the one whose job it is to testify of truth. Now that might be too hard for some people, it is usually more of a task for the higher educated (this is not an intent to slight, I am well educated and many leaders of the church are as well) but because educated people are taught to follow paths of physical evidence that leads to confirmation. Spiritual evidence is sometimes more difficult to feel if one isn't familiar to its promptings and the path to it such as prayer, scripture study etc. The point I was trying to make its hard for me to see one who has felt the confirmation of the spirit then deny the church due to not agreeing with a Stake President on paying tithing or being excommunicated for some sin and then to try to save as perceived loss of dignity or integrity so they claim its because of history. These last two examples are how two very well known anti's have left the church. It is much easier for one to claim history than to claim pride or some other type of sin. All I'm saying, who knows I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first or last time, It is a complex and more than likely a process many good life time members are excommunicated but not from an overnight idea that suddenly struck them as untrue but little by little they have lost their testimony and it is my opinion that it is due more to pride or serious sin than because of history.

[cartoon bluejay]

Hi CartoonBJ, what did you mean by "many contradictions with science?"

For DNA, I think it comes down to the assumption that Lamanites are Native Americans.

I was talking about Kolob and the sun "borrowing" light from Kolob. I was talking about the age of the earth being 13.7 billion years old. I was talking about Evolution.

I think it's easy to make the assumption that Lamanites are Native American. It's what we were taught. I remember Spencer W. Kimball putting a lot of effort into the Lamanite people and where I was from there used to be a Lamanite placement program.

[Doctor Steuss]

I was talking about Evolution.

I tend to think that some LDS scriptures actually point in the direction of evolution.

[California]

I tend to think that some LDS scriptures actually point in the direction of evolution.

I do too. If not physical evolution in this eternity only, then a physical evolution bound to spiritual evolution throughout several eternities. Either way, I don't doubt it. And yet I am still a TBM! I don't think we have to choose between one thing and the other, that is the whole premise of our religion, adding to truth as we come to find it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was talking about Kolob and the sun "borrowing" light from Kolob. I was talking about the age of the earth being 13.7 billion years old. I was talking about Evolution.

The sun "borrows light from Kolob," which light is of Christ, the one who created it. This could be a parabolic interpretation of creation, but the doctrine is the source of our light is Christ, whether literally or simply by creation or organization or even direction.

Evolution, in a certain way, is the plan of salvation: it is development, within a species, to a higher state of existence, attribute, ability, etc.

[cartoon bluejay]

I tend to think that some LDS scriptures actually point in the direction of evolution.

Can you point me in the right direction - I'd like to read what you've got. In your opinion, how does Adam and Eve work with Evolution?

[John D the First]

The more I learn about church history the more profound and inspiring I find Mormonism. It is fascinating to see how God works with raw humanity, and how biological, social, cultural and psychological humans work with God. Though we are fallen, God still makes covenants with us, speaks to us, and allows us to exercise our divine intelligence and freedom. It is beautiful.

[Thinking]

...the historians who know most about our Church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church.

Where do we find these historians?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Where do we find these historians?

I'll offer a few names to get the list started:

1) B.H. Roberts

2) Leonard Arrington

3) Davis Bitton.

[California]

Can you point me in the right direction - I'd like to read what you've got. In your opinion, how does Adam and Eve work with Evolution?

So, this is what I have from another post:

Thanks for writing back, Cold Steel.

Take my â??best shotâ? eh?

Gosh, I was hoping to get away with just a token effort, sort of like 50% home teaching, and thatâ??s counting a conversation in the foyer at Church...

Okay first of all, Iâ??m not convinced of reincarnation myself. Iâ??d have to remember a past life, or encounter irrefutable proof of one. So all I can give you are speculations and ruminations and hopefully a few evidences of a possibility.

Something that helped open me to the possibility was the concept that there are two resurrections. The first is the resurrection of judgment, or correction, or damnation, or of the unjust (in Greek the word is â??Krisisâ?). In that resurrection, you get sent to the telestial kingdom.

Where is the telestial kingdom? Bingo.

I was taught in seminary that Joseph Smith was asked by a newspaper reporter if he believed that all non-Mormons were going to hell. He said yes, and that the Mormons would too unless they lived their religion. Now that sounds awful severe, but what if he really meant that if you donâ??t make it, you have to come back and try again?

The second resurrection is the one when you â??graduateâ? from this lower sphere, to a higher one - and become in effect immortal (you donâ??t have to die and be reborn anymore). This is the â??better resurrectionâ? spoken of by Paul. Section 132 speaks of â??eternal livesâ? on the one hand, and â??the deathsâ? on the other. Joseph goes into more detail in the King Follett

Discourse:

â??Here, then, is eternal life... namely... going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from EXALTATION TO EXALTATION, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead...â? (emphasis mine). So you have to make it to â??exaltationâ? in more than one lifetime, and only after you have progressed sufficiently on this earth do you attain to the permanent resurrection of the dead - this being the higher resurrection, where you become immortal. This is a very different order from whatâ??s taught in church these days, but this is about the higher resurrection, not the resurrection of correction (â??try again, buddyâ?).

Okay this is somewhat discouraging, but it really was unrealistic to think that after one lifetime of doing your home teaching and paying your tithing youâ??d qualify for Godhood. Nope, sorry - you gotta get there the old fashioned way.

In Section 90 verses 12 -18, the Lord is telling Joseph Smith what his jobs are. Letâ??s look at verse 16: â??And this shall be your business and mission IN ALL YOUR LIVES, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.â? (Emphasis mine).

The implication is that Joseph will be back, and maybe heâ??s been here before - but thatâ??s another topic.

Heber C. Kimball expressed it this way:

â??We have come here to become inured to work - to build temples, and improve upon the elements that God has placed around us, that we may become more skillful tomorrow, through the experience of to-day. What I do not to-day, when the sun goes down, I lay down to sleep, which is typical of death; and in the morning I rise and commence my work where I left it yesterday. That course is typical of the probations we take. But suppose that I do not improve my time to-day, I wake up to-morrow and find myself in the rear; and then, if I do not improve upon that day, and again lay down to sleep, on awaking, I find myself still in the rear. This dayâ??s work is typical of this probation, and the sleep of every night is typical of death, and rising in the morning is typical of the resurrection. They are days labours, and it is for us to be faithful to-day, tomorrow, and every day.â? (Journal of Discourses 4:329)

The resurrection he refers to is what we would call reincarnation.

So following Heber C. Kimballâ??s description, it sounds to me like if you are working in the right direction you arenâ??t going to come back in circumstances that will thwart your progress.

Some evidence of reincarnation is found in the New Testament. John the Baptist may well have been the reincarnation of Elijah (Elias in the

Greek):

Matthew 11:13-15: â??For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.â?

Matthew 17:10-13: â??And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.â?

About the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, we read in Mark 9:4 Joseph Smith Translation: â??And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or in other words John the Baptist and Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.â?

D&C 2:1 says that the priesthood would be revealed to Joseph Smith "by the hand of Elijah the prophet". Who was the first person to reveal priesthood to Joseph Smith? John the Baptist.

Reincarnation gives God a chance to be fair - the infant who died will come back and have a full life, and probably many full lives. Curses in the old testament that continue â??to the third and fourth generationâ?

arenâ??t so unfair if itâ??s talking about heavy kharma that follows a person for several lifetimes. Going to hell is something weâ??ve probably all done many times, and yet we can still make it to the Celestial Kingdom (see D&C

19:4-11 about Godâ??s punishment not being permanent). Promises of â??a hundredfold in this world of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children...â? can literally be fulfilled.

If you would like to read a more in-depth treatment of the subject, take a look at a couple of articles by a rather innovative thinker named J.J.

Dewey, which you can read here:

http://www.jjwritings.com/books/reincarnat...nism/index.html

http://www.jjwritings.com/books/eternal_lives/index.html

I have left out some counter-arguments that Dewey discusses in his articles, as well as additional evidences.

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.

[Doctor Steuss]

Can you point me in the right direction - I'd like to read what you've got. In your opinion, how does Adam and Eve work with Evolution?

As far as scripture, Abraham 4.

11-12

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

20-21

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

24-25

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

I think Mike Ash (sometimes posts here) has said it much better than I will ever be able to: The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution. Talmage and Roberts might have been onto something. The whole "Pre-Adamite" thing is not without its pitfalls, but those might have been ironed out if Smith and McConkie weren't so danged dogmatic.

There is also an old thread here in which I kind of flesh out some of my ideas (and issues with JFS). This was a long time ago, so some (if not many) of my ideas have probably changed. It also kind of became "wanky" with the board conversion (you'll see what I'm talking about if you try to read it... some characters turned into gobalygook).

[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?

Or it could be the light of Christ - some believe it's the promptings of the Holy Ghost. That's another topic (it might even be one I'm more interested in?)

Anyway, that was great! Thank you. It's going to take me some time read over the links that were there.

[Thinking]

I'll offer a few names to get the list started:

1) B.H. Roberts

2) Leonard Arrington

3) Davis Bitton.

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

2) Leonard Arrington (LDS Church Historian)

3) Davis Bitton (Assistant LDS Church Historian)

Who signed their paychecks?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

2) Leonard Arrington (LDS Church Historian)

3) Davis Bitton (Assistant LDS Church Historian)

Who signed their paychecks?

CFR on B.H. Roberts ever receiving a paycheck from the Church.

Didn't Grant Palmer receive paychecks from the Church? I guess that was only wnough to keep him with it until he retired; after which he published his "tell all," which as has been discussed before, is recycled anti-Mormon asked-and-answered material.

Bitton and Arrington being wmployed by the Church meant they were lying and covering up? Do you have anything other than a baseless accusation to bring to the table? This is one of the most ludicrous and ill-conceived responses you've given me, Thinking.

[Thinking]

CFR on B.H. Roberts ever receiving a paycheck from the Church.

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.

Didn't Grant Palmer receive paychecks from the Church? I guess that was only wnough to keep him with it until he retired; after which he published his "tell all," which as has been discussed before, is recycled anti-Mormon asked-and-answered material.

You just made my point.

Bitton and Arrington being wmployed by the Church meant they were lying and covering up? Do you have anything other than a baseless accusation to bring to the table? This is one of the most ludicrous and ill-conceived responses you've given me, Thinking.

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

[LifeOnaPlate]

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."

Honestly, if you are going to give so little thought to this discussion I'm going to go ahead and bow out now. Learn more about B.H. Roberts, and don't attribute quotes to people who never said them.

[Thinking]

...don't attribute quotes to people who never said them.

To whom did I attribute the quote?