White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[Love For All]

This topic continues to go the rounds and pop up in various forms on a variety of threads--the most recent being the thread on public excommunication.

I am going to try and take a somewhat different approach than may have been used in the past when discussing this issue, in hopes that it may be laid somewhat to rest, or help the disputants find some mutually benefitial resolution or satisfaction, if not come closer to an agreement.

Let me start by outlining, as fairly and as accurately as possible, what I see as the critics point of view, and then later in the thread juxtapose it against how I, and perhaps various apologists, see the issue.

Correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to fill in the key blanks if I happen to miss any, but here are the basic elements of one of the primary arguments I hear coming from the critics on this matter:

Argument:

a) There are certain historical facts that may be viewed as suggesting that the Church isn't true.

These historical facts are not being disclosed in missionary, Sunday School, or Seminary lessons.

c) Because membership in the Church involves considerable commitment, and devoting of personal resources (time, money, etc.), it is only right, fair, and prudent that decisions about joining the Church, or decisions about continuing in the Church, be informed.

d) Since the Church has not disclosing certain historical fact that may suggest it isn't true, it has not been right, fair, and prudent with it's investigators and members.

Is this a fair and accurate representation of the fundamental elements of the argument?

If not, then please make whatever corrections and additions you think necessary.

If so, then while I look at the issue somewhat differently, I believe the argument above is rational, and I think that those who view things this way can logically harbor some level of negative sentiments towards the Church for what they deem to be a lack of right, fair, and prudent disclosure. In short, I hear you and hopefully understand you.

With that having been said, it might be of interest to see if one of the critics (who embrace the argument above) would make an earnest attempt to fairly and accurately outline the apologetic point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

You may also look at it coming from the opposite direction. There are many things (or even just one) that makes it clear that the LDS Church is truly the Lord's restoration of HIs gospel. Do you then attribute all that makes it seem untrue to the shortcomings of man.

Per an expert in 6 Semitic languages, Sam Hanna, Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon hmself. He would have had to understand Semitic language and sentence structure and use of words not commonly used by Americans. So convinced of this fact, Sam joined the Church while translating the Book of Mormon into Arabic.

It goes on, but what if we were to stop with this fact? There is bound to be error, but with so much good, in addition to what we've already had available to us in Christianity, how can we deny it?

LFA

[John Williams]

I can understand how you may see it that way. I see it a little differently. To me, once conversion takes place, it no longer is a matter of "selling", but a matter of growth in faith. In other words, once the "product or service" has been "purchased", it then becomes simply a matter of using the "product or service" as it is designed. And, whatever growth or loss of faith occurs from that point on, is a function of use of the "product or service", not a function of "selling". In fact, I would submit that if "selling" is needed after the innitial "purchase", then either the "product or service" isn't being used the way it is designed, or it isn't working for the "customer".

I disagree. There is constant "selling" in the church, as testimonies must be strengthened or reinforced. If, as you say, conversion has already taken place, no strengthening or reinforcement is necessary.

Anyway, getting back to the topic of this thread (which has to do with whether or not it is reasonable for the Church to be selective in the history it chooses to teach its investigators and members), lets move from the general to the specific, and for practical purposes, let's pick a single historical event and see how it factors into the respective general arguments (with the understanding that typically it isn't a single historical event that causes a loss of faith, but multiple events).

From what I can tell, the belief that Joseph had sexual relations with other men's wives and with an 15-year-old young woman, has negatively affected the faith of many who are now former members and current critics. Should we use this alleged historical event as our single or first example, or do you and other critics prefer to use another historical event?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's not a bad place to start, I suppose, as this issue is troubling to many people in and out of the church.

[BishopRic]

I can understand how you may see it that way. I see it a little differently. To me, once conversion takes place, it no longer is a matter of "selling", but a matter of growth in faith. In other words, once the "product or service" has been "purchased", it then becomes simply a matter of using the "product or service" as it is designed. And, whatever growth or loss of faith occurs from that point on, is a function of use of the "product or service", not a function of "selling". In fact, I would submit that if "selling" is needed after the innitial "purchase", then either the "product or service" isn't being used the way it is designed, or it isn't working for the "customer".

Anyway, getting back to the topic of this thread (which has to do with whether or not it is reasonable for the Church to be selective in the history it chooses to teach its investigators and members), lets move from the general to the specific, and for practical purposes, let's pick a single historical event and see how it factors into the respective general arguments (with the understanding that typically it isn't a single historical event that causes a loss of faith, but multiple events).

From what I can tell, the belief that Joseph had sexual relations with other men's wives and with an 15-year-old young woman, has negatively affected the faith of many who are now former members and current critics. Should we use this alleged historical event as our single or first example, or do you and other critics prefer to use another historical event?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes...that's one of many, but a good start. The way many of us exmos view some of Joseph's claims is similar to how it might work in our judicial system -- looking at the credibility of the witness.

In a nutshell, it is claimed that Joseph was chosen by God to do a "marvelous work and a wonder" in the last days. The importance of his mission, some say, was second only to the Savior's. So, if we can get past the idiotic argument that God is testing our faith by making things hard to believe, reason causes us to believe that Joseph would have been a very moral, honest person. His sexual escapades with multiple women, including men's wives he sent on missions, teenagers...all serve to taint this clean image one would expect of a Prophet. Now, the excuse that previous prophets did the same doesn't fly with me. So did Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and I think we all have the same opinion of them.

The next item that taints his credibility is his claim to translate. Besides the major work of the BoM -- and I like Tom Donofrio's analysis there:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/

there is the found papyrus of the BofA (not "written by his own hand"), the Kinderhook plates (a planted forgery) and others.

His lying to his wife about other women, lying to people about his ability to translate, are just a few of the reasons I would conclude ALL his claims are suspect.

[OMWO2]

I think the church has learned over the years that teaching the whole history of the church is non-productive and inhibits growth in membership and tithes. The decision, it seems to me, has been made and that is to do all that is possible to discourage the learning/teaching of this history to the common chapel Mormons and to prospective members.

I agree that might be the position, although I do not know. But, rather then hold back the "meat" until one has proven an ability to process the "milk" maybe laying the "meat" out in some TBD format would improve retention "longterm". I admit I do not have an answer for what would be the best way to do it. I only feel that by not laying it out in the open casues problems. IMHO, the current process provides immediate success because the wonderful, feel good things are placed promenantly out there for the world to see. Clean living, focus on the family, eternal marriage etc.. Theses are all things that attract new members. But with low retention rates, it says that something is lacking once they are in. I believe it is the core doctrinal issues that surface after 1, 2, 5 or even 30 years that cause one's faith to be destroyed.

regards

[HiJolly]

Yes...that's one of many, but a good start. The way many of us exmos view some of Joseph's claims is similar to how it might work in our judicial system -- looking at the credibility of the witness.

In a nutshell, it is claimed that Joseph was chosen by God to do a "marvelous work and a wonder" in the last days. The importance of his mission, some say, was second only to the Savior's. So, if we can get past the idiotic argument that God is testing our faith by making things hard to believe, reason causes us to believe that Joseph would have been a very moral, honest person. His sexual escapades with multiple women, including men's wives he sent on missions, teenagers...all serve to taint this clean image one would expect of a Prophet. Now, the excuse that previous prophets did the same doesn't fly with me. So did Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and I think we all have the same opinion of them.

The next item that taints his credibility is his claim to translate. Besides the major work of the BoM -- and I like Tom Donofrio's analysis there:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/

there is the found papyrus of the BofA (not "written by his own hand"), the Kinderhook plates (a planted forgery) and others.

His lying to his wife about other women, lying to people about his ability to translate, are just a few of the reasons I would conclude ALL his claims are suspect.

I just think it is FASCINATING, how evidence, fact, truth, etc. all works together in our minds. Just amazing. I ought to get a masters in psychology. I've known about these issues for basically the last 15 years or so. I've researched, found, read, analyzed, and pondered the evidence at length. I completely disagree with your characterizations and your conclusions. It amazes me.

I often think that I (unwittingly) cheated long ago, when the Spirit made sure I knew that there was something going on. I've evaluated, re-thought and pondered that experience, and others similar to it, more even than the evidences of history.

I think about all these things quite often, and the human dynamic that it plays out in each of us.

"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking"

-- Arthur Bloch

HiJolly

[wenglund]

Wade,

You may also look at it coming from the opposite direction. There are many things (or even just one) that makes it clear that the LDS Church is truly the Lord's restoration of HIs gospel. Do you then attribute all that makes it seem untrue to the shortcomings of man.

Per an expert in 6 Semitic languages, Sam Hanna, Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon hmself. He would have had to understand Semitic language and sentence structure and use of words not commonly used by Americans. So convinced of this fact, Sam joined the Church while translating the Book of Mormon into Arabic.

It goes on, but what if we were to stop with this fact? There is bound to be error, but with so much good, in addition to what we've already had available to us in Christianity, how can we deny it? LFA

I believe I am making a concerted effort here to look at things from both directions. As someone who on the the apologetic side, I understand what you are saying, but want to make sure I correctly understand the opposing position, and they mine. Hopefully, as the thread proceeds, your point will be understood by the opponents, if not agreed with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alf O'Mega]

As someone who was actually paying attention, I can attest to the fact that it was taught that it was at the time "the thing to do" to be sealed to the prophet, and as such, a whole lot more women were sealed to Joseph than were actually married to him.

I'd be interested to see a reference to this from a lesson manual. I (as someone who was also paying attention) heard the same thing, but I'm not at all sure it was in any of the official teaching materials.

[John Williams]

I just think it is FASCINATING, how evidence, fact, truth, etc. all works together in our minds. Just amazing. I ought to get a masters in psychology. I've known about these issues for basically the last 15 years or so. I've researched, found, read, analyzed, and pondered the evidence at length. I completely disagree with your characterizations and your conclusions. It amazes me.

I often think that I (unwittingly) cheated long ago, when the Spirit made sure I knew that there was something going on. I've evaluated, re-thought and pondered that experience, and others similar to it, more even than the evidences of history.

I think about all these things quite often, and the human dynamic that it plays out in each of us.

HiJolly

I've known about the same things for many years as well. And, like you, I managed to work out conclusions that I could live with as a member of the church. Then literally in one day everything changed. What I had rationalized no longer worked for me.

[wenglund]

Yes...that's one of many, but a good start. The way many of us exmos view some of Joseph's claims is similar to how it might work in our judicial system -- looking at the credibility of the witness.

In a nutshell, it is claimed that Joseph was chosen by God to do a "marvelous work and a wonder" in the last days. The importance of his mission, some say, was second only to the Savior's. So, if we can get past the idiotic argument that God is testing our faith by making things hard to believe, reason causes us to believe that Joseph would have been a very moral, honest person. His sexual escapades with multiple women, including men's wives he sent on missions, teenagers...all serve to taint this clean image one would expect of a Prophet. Now, the excuse that previous prophets did the same doesn't fly with me. So did Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and I think we all have the same opinion of them.

The next item that taints his credibility is his claim to translate. Besides the major work of the BoM -- and I like Tom Donofrio's analysis there:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/

there is the found papyrus of the BofA (not "written by his own hand"), the Kinderhook plates (a planted forgery) and others.

His lying to his wife about other women, lying to people about his ability to translate, are just a few of the reasons I would conclude ALL his claims are suspect.

Great, then let's proceed with this historical event, and I will attempt to reflect back to you, syllogistically, what I understand the critic's argument to be, and in a way that ties into the general argument outlined in the OP, and in a way that seems reasonable--whether I agree with it or not.

It will help, too, if in the interim you would thoughtfully formulate what you may see as a reasonable apologetic argument (in concert with the general apologetic argument I outlined earlier) for the Church not including this alleged historical event in their lessons.

However, I have to take care of some business right now, and won't be able to post the syllogism until later tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

I've known about the same things for many years as well. And, like you, I managed to work out conclusions that I could live with as a member of the church. Then literally in one day everything changed. What I had rationalized no longer worked for me.

As I. What was amazing to me was the "sources" of the "anti" material went from demonically possessed to possible truth. Then when I approached the issues with a truly open mind -- not "wanting" either side to be true, just wanting to know what the truth was, my current understanding emerged.

Now let me save some of you the time: "oh, that's when he lost the spirit and Satan took over!"

[wenglund]

Hi John and HIjolly, etc.,

I just wanted you to know that I have carefully considered what you had to say, but don't have the time at the moment to adequately respond. However, I promise to do so when I finish the business I now need to attend to. Please be patient.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Per an expert in 6 Semitic languages, Sam Hanna, Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon hmself. He would have had to understand Semitic language and sentence structure and use of words not commonly used by Americans. So convinced of this fact, Sam joined the Church while translating the Book of Mormon into Arabic.

[...]

Unfortunately, Sami Hanna has repudiated all of his former comments regarding the Book of Mormon. But, fortunately at the same time, some of Sami's stuff was "linguistically naive" so a repudiation really doesn't mean all that much (see: John A Tvedtnes, "Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review of Books 2/1 (1990): 258â??259 -- the stuff on Hanna is about half way through the article).

[HiJolly]

As I. What was amazing to me was the "sources" of the "anti" material went from demonically possessed to possible truth.

You may imagine my shock when I realized that some conference reports were only available to the public via the Utah Lighthouse Ministries... ...or Sunstone... ...or the Church archives, which are (in this case, certainly) also open and available to the public. But the internet is so much easier, if you know what I mean...

Then when I approached the issues with a truly open mind -- not "wanting" either side to be true, just wanting to know what the truth was, my current understanding emerged.

Ah, if we could only bottle that 'truly open mind' and sell it!! ...or BUY it, for that matter...

"Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don't know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God."

-- Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

Now let me save some of you the time: "oh, that's when he lost the spirit and Satan took over!"

Always, seek for Truth. Wisdom cannot attain, until Truth abides in Love. (me)

HiJolly

[Pahoran]

Let's see, I guess you want me to go back to my notes (which I'm sure we all took great notes in seminary in the 70s) and show you that? Umm, I'll let you find it if you really need to.

No.

I'd like you to produce an official Church teaching manual, resource manual or other curriculum item that asserts that Joseph never practiced polygamy in fact, or that he never consummated any of his plural marriages.

Just one will be sufficient to establish, for the purposes of this discussion, that this was an official Church position at any time in your lifetime.

You made the assertion. I am giving you a call for references. You are now obliged to produce one.

It will save you some trouble to simply admit now that there never has been such a position.

Because there has not. And yet you, alone, seem to find it everywhere, both now and thirty-plus years ago.

Funny, that.

Alternatively, if you find such an admission unpalatable, you could try to find some excuse to blow me off instead. Such as...

Those ad hominum attacks will end my dialogue with you. I guess the great Pahoran is immune to following board rules here.

Having been admonished by the mods many times, I don't think so, but I fail to see how pointing out that I paid attention breaks any rules.

The fact is that I have never ever heard that all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic or sealings only. Nor have I ever asserted such myself, but I have been accused of so saying, more than once.

Whatever. I'll discuss with people that are civil.

And in keeping with your oh so high standards of civility, you'd never do anything as uncivil as, say, accuse Joseph Smith of lying, would you?

Guess you've missed the phrase "once a bishop, always a bishop," huh? And I thought you"paid attention!"

Guess your dialogue with me is not quite at an end, huh?

Indeed I did pay attention. And I did not miss that phrase. Nor did I miss the fact that it applies only to those who remain faithful.

You are not speaking from a position of authority here. Your screenname gives the impression that you are. Given your claimed love of truth in advertising, you of course would not want to give a false impression, even unintentionally.

Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Having just finished the Book of Alma I have to say Pahoran sounds a lot more like Moroni-style epistles than Pahoran-style!

That being said, I'd also be interested in BishopRic producing any official Church teaching that Joseph Smith didn't consummate any plural marriages.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Having just finished the Book of Alma I have to say Pahoran sounds a lot more like Moroni-style epistles than Pahoran-style!

That being said, I'd also be interested in BishopRic producing any official Church teaching that Joseph Smith didn't consummate any plural marriages.

Heaven forbid we actually get a reply on it. Oh well.

[Deborah]

When I joined the church as a naive 14 year old and first came into contact with the polygamy issue it never crossed my mind that all marriages would have been platonic, or that any would have been. I don't think I ever heard anyone suggest they were. So like others here I would like to know the official church source that taught that all of Joseph's marriages were unconsummated.

[jadams_4242]

Guess you've missed the phrase "once a bishop, always a bishop," huh? And I thought you"paid attention!"

You surely do seem to want to display the title "bishopric" to let everybody know you were once a

bishop, but then you spend so much time decrying what being a bishop stands for? And now come to

find out that you not only walked away from your bishop responsibilities but you did it 10 years ago?

And now 10 years later you still want people to think you worthily bear the honor of using this title?

And you want all of us to feel sorry for you because your "worthy" preisthood holder father in law

would rather go to his "preplanned" temple work rather that change the appointment just to stay home

for the great big and exciting birthday party for his 50 year old son in law? -- puuulleazze!

[Scott Lloyd]

Having just finished the Book of Alma I have to say Pahoran sounds a lot more like Moroni-style epistles than Pahoran-style!

That being said, I'd also be interested in BishopRic producing any official Church teaching that Joseph Smith didn't consummate any plural marriages.

As would I.

If Pahoran is too "uncivil" for "BishopRic"'s tastes, then perhaps he (BRic) could oblige LifeOnaPlate or me.

Incidentally, virtually all of the current Church curriculum materials are on line and searchable at www.lds.org. This includes Church magazines going back to the early '70s.

And the Institute materials are on line at www.ldsces.org.

That should give BRic a starting point.

[Scott Lloyd]

You surely do seem to want to display the title "bishopric" to let everybody know you were once a

bishop, but then you spend so much time decrying what being a bishop stands for? And now come to

find out that you not only walked away from your bishop responsibilities but you did it 10 years ago?

And now 10 years later you still want people to think you worthily bear the honor of using this title?

And you want all of us to feel sorry for you because your "worthy" preisthood holder father in law

would rather go to his "preplanned" temple work rather that change the appointment just to stay home

for the great big and exciting birthday party for his 50 year old son in law? -- puuulleazze!

I guess we tend to view things in various ways. When I turned 50 three years ago, I wouldn't have wanted the in-laws over to the house, and definitely wouldn't have wanted them revising their plans for that purpose. In fact, the less fuss made about it the better, as far as I was concerned.

[BishopRic]

Having just finished the Book of Alma I have to say Pahoran sounds a lot more like Moroni-style epistles than Pahoran-style!

That being said, I'd also be interested in BishopRic producing any official Church teaching that Joseph Smith didn't consummate any plural marriages.

I've posted this a few times, but for those that didn't read it, I have never said "this was the official teaching of the church." It was what was taught in my various church classes in the 70s. It was my experience (and obviously many others here). You can choose to disbelieve it if that helps you in some way. I understand that to keep the church reputation clean, one might stick with the phrase "it wasn't church doctrine...." My point is that this is a lay church, and there are commonly talks and lessons given that are not from a manual.

There...does that keep you safe?

You surely do seem to want to display the title "bishopric" to let everybody know you were once a

bishop, but then you spend so much time decrying what being a bishop stands for? And now come to

find out that you not only walked away from your bishop responsibilities but you did it 10 years ago?

And now 10 years later you still want people to think you worthily bear the honor of using this title?

It's a play on words. Get over it!

[Pahoran]

I've posted this a few times, but for those that didn't read it, I have never said "this was the official teaching of the church." It was what was taught in my various church classes in the 70s.

Okay, so that everyone knows what is being discussed here, let us review your original claim:

Okay, to merge the two issues (and stick to the thread topic), first, please understand that in my younger years (I'm 50 now), polygamy WAS taught...just that Brigham is who started practicing it "physically" (because it was illegal for Joseph to have practiced it, and we don't want a prophet breaking the law!).

So when you used the clever passive voice assertion "polygamy WAS taught," without specifying by whom, you really truly didn't intend for anyone to get the impression that the Church was teaching "just that Brigham is who started practicing it 'physically'" in any formal or organised way, only that this is what some individual teachers said, without actually consulting their manuals. Honest.

And furthermore, to this very day, everywhere you go, as soon as you bump into any Latter-day Saints, you make a point of asking them about Joseph's polygamy, and they always promptly and unhesitatingly tell you that he didn't practice it. Every time.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

It was my experience (and obviously many others here).

Erm, not "many," no.

But since the above is as close as you will ever be able to bring yourself to admit that you have no actual evidence that the Church ever taught such a thing, I guess we'll just have to take it.

You can choose to disbelieve it if that helps you in some way.

Oh, I don't doubt that someone somewhere has said such a thing. But I find your constantly repeated, tediously boring refrain that this is all anyone has ever said on the subject in your hearing for the last 50 years to be entirely unbelieveable, and your deeply hurt feelings that we don't just uncritically swallow it to be hilarious.

There is something eerily Martha Beckesque about the way every single Latter-day Saint you talk to off this board says exactly what you need them to say in order to support your claims. None of your informants have names. No particulars of these encounters are supplied. There is no way for us to check up on your claims. Therefore we are entitled to regard them as mere noise, empty of meaning.

I understand that to keep the church reputation clean, one might stick with the phrase "it wasn't church doctrine...."

Oh, so you are repeating this tale in order to attack the Church's reputation, are you? An interesting admission.

My point is that this is a lay church, and there are commonly talks and lessons given that are not from a manual.

So how can the Church possibly be held responsible for what people say on their own authority, without referring to the manual?

There...does that keep you safe?

We were always "safe." Did you really imagine that your silly, transparently exaggerated claims were ever threatening?

It's a play on words. Get over it!

So you're quite happy to allow people to imagine that you are part of a current bishopric, and be ambushed by your absolutely bog-standard anti-Mormon rhetoric.

Got it.

Just please make sure you avoid any sanctimonious pontifications on the subject of "honesty." You know--glass houses, stones and all that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mpschmitt]

I wanted to chime in on a theme that went through a few posts here and that comes up a lot when we talk about "evidences" for our faith. This seems a strange thing to me and I think the entire apologetic process is something we need to take a very close look at (LDS and Non-LDS alike). There has been a wave growing in Christianity in general around the idea that one needs to amass a solid case of "evidence" before one can truly declare that one's faith is genuine and rooted in truth.

Many times Christian writers from one camp or another seek to demonstrate by these "evidences" that their perspective on a given doctrine or practice is more reasonable (or at least closer to pure original Christianity) than another's perspective. In doing so they present a litmus test for truth that is very much rooted in the rationalizations and logical arguments of men rather than in faith. I think this is very shaky ground to be on, because the moment we put more faith in our own learning and research than we do in the risen Lord, we are in danger of loosing everything the moment someone comes along with a better argument.

Apologetics is interesting and often edifying as an excercise but, it is not the source of a testimony of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was on the earth, he didn't say "If any of you desire to know with certainty the truth of what I teach you, let him first examine the past 1000 years of Jewish history and doctrinal development, and then, when he is thoroughly well versed, let him find a PhD to help him sort it all out and interpret it properly. Yea, verily let him check every spiritual impression he's had while listening to me and make sure it is 'verifiable' against the historical record until he's absolutely certain and let him throw out anything I've said that doesn't go with the grain of established tradition. If he comes up against a factoid that doesn't seem to fit or make sense to him in the bigger picture, let him stew that one over and ignore all other aspects of his relationship with God until he feels better about it. Yea, let him spend 10 or 20 years from that point on reading books by other PhDs (for verily, I say unto you there are many) until he knows an awful lot more on the subject, and then, verily I say unto you, let him debate and argue with other people who have more or less experience with such things for another decade or so (however long he has left), and hopefully at the end of it all he'll have a better understanding of the whole enchilada and then finally be ready to get to know me (or at least be well prepared to make others feel that their beliefs are stupid)."

Now don't misunderstand me, I think apologetics is a wonderful thing when it is in its proper place and it is understood to be an imperfect and developing process. But when they become the focus of our faith, when we are unable to have faith in something without evidence to support all of the minutae, we are on a slipery slope. Faith isn't faith if it doesn't stretch you a bit. To my knowledge no one has produced incontrovertible evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, yet I believe it. Every few years some uppity professor from some prodigious circle of academics comes out with another "air tight" reason for me to disbelieve it. Should I throw in the towel every time that happens and relinquish what I have come to know by faith? I think not.

The early Apostles in Jesus' day taught faith in him and repentance and baptism. They taught the importance of maintaining a relationship with God through earnest, prayerful living and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. There were no PhDs, no Bible scholars, no schools of Theology in their day (with the exception of the Church), and yet they taught wisdom that far exceeded their age and experience because they were transformed men in Christ. They taught the revealed Gospel. They knew the Master and author and finisher of their faith and they worshipped in truth taught them by the Hoy Ghost. They had no need for "experts" because their relationship with Him was active and vibrant.

y'all feel what I'm saying here?

[wenglund]

I disagree. There is constant "selling" in the church, as testimonies must be strengthened or reinforced. If, as you say, conversion has already taken place, no strengthening or reinforcement is necessary.

That's not a bad place to start, I suppose, as this issue is troubling to many people in and out of the church.

I agree that strengthening or reinforcing of testimonies does take place. Where we may differ is in what we may perceive has been used to produce the strengthening and reinforcement. Are these outcomes derived from "selling", or are they derived from the use of the "product or service" itself--i.e. via the process of growth in faith, which I view as including, in part, humble reception of edifying instruction (i.e. strength through the power of knowledge) and meekly rising up to meet faith challenges (i.e. strength through resistance)? And/or, looked at another way, are these outcomes more a function of the Church's effort ("selling"), or more a function of individual effort (use of the "product or service")?

I can respect that in your experience within the Church, you may have been strengthened or reinforced through "sells". However, I hope you can respect that my experience has been different. The strengthening or reinforcing I received came through using the "product or service" as I believe it was designed.

Could it be that the differing ways in which we may have derived strength or reinforcement have something to do with your loss of faith and my still growing in faith? Who knows?

Whatever the case, while these questions may be of interests to explore, they are not of direct relevance to the topic of the thread. As such, I hope you don't mind if I leave off further discussing them here, though I wouldn't mind exploring them on another thread were you interested enough to start it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yes...that's one of many, but a good start. The way many of us exmos view some of Joseph's claims is similar to how it might work in our judicial system -- looking at the credibility of the witness.

In a nutshell, it is claimed that Joseph was chosen by God to do a "marvelous work and a wonder" in the last days. The importance of his mission, some say, was second only to the Savior's. So, if we can get past the idiotic argument that God is testing our faith by making things hard to believe, reason causes us to believe that Joseph would have been a very moral, honest person. His sexual escapades with multiple women, including men's wives he sent on missions, teenagers...all serve to taint this clean image one would expect of a Prophet. Now, the excuse that previous prophets did the same doesn't fly with me. So did Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and I think we all have the same opinion of them.

The next item that taints his credibility is his claim to translate. Besides the major work of the BoM -- and I like Tom Donofrio's analysis there:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/

there is the found papyrus of the BofA (not "written by his own hand"), the Kinderhook plates (a planted forgery) and others.

His lying to his wife about other women, lying to people about his ability to translate, are just a few of the reasons I would conclude ALL his claims are suspect.

I have taken the liberty of putting the relevant portions of your argument above, and others that I have heard from critics, into a succinct syllogism, and in a way that is tied into the general argument previously outlined:

a) If an alleged prophet's behavior is immoral, that is reason to disbelieve he is a true prophet.

b) Critics believe that having sex with other men's wives and with a 15-year-old young women is immoral.

c) Critics have concluded that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with other men's wives and with a 15-year-old young woman, and thus they disbelieve that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

d) And, since they disbelieve that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, they also disbelieve the Church he helped found is true.

e) Had the critics known about these supposed "affairs" prior to joining the Church, or early in their membership, they would not have made the significant commitment, or devoted considerable resources, to a Church they do not believe is true.

f) And, according to the general argument from the critics outlined previously, it then would have been right, fair, and prudent for the Church to have taught about these "affairs" in their missionary, Sunday School, and seminary lessons, thereby enabling the critics to avoid wrongful commitments and sacrifices.

Is this a fair and accurate representation of the critics argument for this specific historical case?

If not, then please make whatever corrections and additions you think necessary.

If so, then again, while I look at the issue somewhat differently, I believe the argument above is rational, and I think that those who view things this way can reasonably harbor some level of negative sentiments towards the Church for what they deem to be a lack of right, fair, and prudent disclosure. In short, I hear you, and hopefully i understand you.

With that having been said, it might again be of interest to see if one or two of the critics (who embrace the argument above) would make an earnest attempt to fairly and accurately outline the apologetic point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-