For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

Did Al Gore do the installation?

[Kyle]

name='ERayR' date='Mar 16 2009, 12:34 PM' post='1208616216']

A dogmatic assertion of falseness of the LDS church contributes nothing to a civil discussion. You see I can just as dogmatically assert that the LDS church is true. My assertion is just as valid as your.

(Kyle @ Mar 16 2009, 12:09 AM)

name='a5m5a5d' date='Mar 15 2009, 09:22 PM' post='1208615826']

It's things like this that give the impression of 18 year olds... not being learned.

Is it possible that some leave the church because it is not true?

How do you know this?

1) It's statements like this that give the impression that 18 year olds have knowledge beyond their ability to comprehend and that they think they know everything. I hope you are able to learn as much in the next 50 years as you think you know now.

2) No! Because it is true.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not dogmatic assertion?

As I stated befor lost the issues, preferably one at a time, that is bothering you. Above all read and consider the answers, you will find that quite often you will findsome very well thought out and documented responses And if you are a sincere seeker you may just learn something.

Can this not go both ways? If it can't just please tell me now, and we will stop discussing.

[ERayR]

QUOTE(Kyle @ Mar 15 2009, 05:14 PM)

I left the church at 15-16 (I'm 18),

Kyle in other posts I have taken issue with what to me is a teen age know it all attitude that is apparent(to me) in your posts. I know (haven been there many years ago) that you think you have all or most of the answers. If you give others credit for having some intelligence and if you meditate on and give some credence to their answers to your posts, and if you adopt some of their knowledge as your own, then in about 50 years you should be about half as knowledgable as you are now and then you will be a very wise person.

[JLFuller]

Only "stupid educated people" leave the church for intellectual reasons

Ah Matt you disappoint me.

[JLFuller]

So I assume that you guys know what the intellectual reasons are?

You didn't ask Kyle but smart people have to know all the answers otherwise its hokum. There is no room for faith. A really smart guy told me that.

[Jeff K.]

I think there is some truth in that. The base belief that intellect can substantiate what can only be known spiritually is somewhat stupid. As Paul said.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things whic are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

[MatthewG]

Ah Matt you disappoint me.

I heard that a lot growing up, what did I do this time besides continue to be sarcastic?

[Daniel Peterson]

The world of apostate Mormons was clearly energized by last night's episode of Big Love, both in anticipation of it and, now, in the gleeful expectation that it did damage to the Church and caused agony among believers -- though I suspect, actually, that life is going to go on precisely as it did before.

Nevertheless, that may account for some of the surging activity here.

In any event, I just want to put on record my conviction, as somebody who is, I suspect, aware of just about every fact and argument that alienated ex-members can muster against belief in the claims of the Restoration -- and who has been so for a very long time -- that the evidence is still plenty good enough to support Mormonism. Not, mind you, to compel belief in it. But entirely sufficient to make a decision to believe reasonable.

And, moreover, I also want to put on record my deep conviction that the principles taught by the Church are good, and that belief in eternal life, an ultimately friendly cosmos, and the fundamental rationality of the universe, is very good.

In discussing the allegedly sordid facts about our past that were supposedly kept from us, or at least not taught to us, by the Church, we sometimes concede much more than we ought to or than the actual facts justify: Joseph Smith isn't an embarrassment. He was a good and sincere man. So was Brigham Young. Early Mormon history is overwhelmingly nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary, in fact. Were early Mormons perfect? No. No more than we are. And no more than their critics are. And there is much in early Mormon history and among the early Saints that is genuinely noble and inspiring.

We don't need to hang our heads in embarrassment.

[Kyle]

Everything on the internet is true. I actually have the entire internet installed on my computer. I know because I asked the tech guy to install my internet and he did.

You're right of course. I found the Bible, the BofM, the Pearl of Great price, and the D&C on the net.

What kind of knowledge do you think that I looked up? Why polygamy is bad? Why my mormon parents are so mean? To be honest, I focused on the larger issues such as

The concept of God

The problem defining God

The many attributes of God

The problems of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence

The definition of a Supernatural being

The God of the OT and the NT

The evil in the world and how God is inherently responsible

The dichotomy between faith and reason

The "proof" of faith that almost every religion proclaims

The study of knowledge

The study of how we gain knowledge

The fallacy of Natural theology, The cosmological arguements, the design arguements

The ethics of Jesus

The inaccuracy of the Bible

The inaccuracy of The BofM

These are the things I have studied thanks to the internet.

[Kyle]

QUOTE(Kyle @ Mar 15 2009, 05:14 PM)

I left the church at 15-16 (I'm 18),

Kyle in other posts I have taken issue with what to me is a teen age know it all attitude that is apparent(to me) in your posts. I know (haven been there many years ago) that you think you have all or most of the answers. If you give others credit for having some intelligence and if you meditate on and give some credence to their answers to your posts, and if you adopt some of their knowledge as your own, then in about 50 years you should be about half as knowledgable as you are now and then you will be a very wise person.

Joseph Smith was 14 when he had the first vision? Joseph Smith was 22 when he began translating?

Help me out here, what is it called when you attack your opponent instead of his ideas?

[MatthewG]

You're right of course. I found the Bible, the BofM, the Pearl of Great price, and the D&C on the net.

What kind of knowledge do you think that I looked up? Why polygamy is bad? Why my mormon parents are so mean? To be honest, I focused on the larger issues such as

The concept of God

The problem defining God

The many attributes of God

The problems of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence

The definition of a Supernatural being

The God of the OT and the NT

The evil in the world and how God is inherently responsible

The dichotomy between faith and reason

The "proof" of faith that almost every religion proclaims

The study of knowledge

The study of how we gain knowledge

The fallacy of Natural theology, The cosmological arguements, the design arguements

The ethics of Jesus

The inaccuracy of the Bible

The inaccuracy of The BofM

These are the things I have studied thanks to the internet.

Sounds like most of your issues are with God, not the LDS Church, why not take up these issues with him? I did. I left the Church for 2 years as I struggled with many of these issues (at about your age as well) I left on my mission at age 21.5 because I struggled with many of the things on your list. Only God and you can resolve them, He did with me, I'm very happy He did.

[krose]

I've said nothing about "shame," but I do tire of whining victimhood. "The Church lied to me!" "The Church kept me from reading!" "The Church didn't furnish me with The Complete List of Brigham Young Quotations on Blacks

[Kyle]

You didn't ask Kyle but smart people have to know all the answers otherwise its hokum. There is no room for faith. A really smart guy told me that.

I never said that. I think that is called a straw man.

You said that people don't leave the church for intellectual reasons.

There are of course, people who do leave, and they claim to leave for intellectual reasons. What I wanted to know is if you have looked at those reasons.

[ttribe]

So...just got through reading the mirror thread over at PostMormon - I can't help but feel the bitterness. Now, that being said, I get it - if I concluded that I couldn't believe in the Church anymore, I might become rather bitter myself. I'm sorry people feel a sense of bitterness, betrayal, etc. but it seems to be DRIVING so many people who have left the Church at this point. Driving them to participate, especially online, to REVEAL all that they believe SHOULD HAVE been revealed to them. And, yet, there is little if any new information out there. Personally, I have been acquainted with the vast majority of the alleged "bad" history for 20 years (and I'm 37). Have I run across a few new items as the years have gone on? Yep. But, it's this focus on the idea that if it wasn't stated plainly from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting, then it must, by definition be deceptive that seems to throw so many people for a loop. Aside from the fact that such a deluge of information would be overwhelming to any listener, no one wants to tackle the notion that not everything can be known about the context of what we have in terms of historical accounts. Furthermore, not every citation or source can be verified, not every attribution can be relied upon. Sifting through historical accounts is an arduous and imperfect process, at best. It seems that our former-members, now-critics, insist on some idealistic disclosure of historical accounts when the reality, such an account can't possibly be assembled.

Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Church has made great strides. Furthermore, it seems that there has been considerable variation in what people were and weren't exposed to early in their lives. I recall, vividly, discussing the origins of the BoA in SEMINARY and yet some people claim to have only heard such things once they got on the Internet...this is just astounding to me. However, far be it from me to say their accounts are untrue. It's just that I don't jump to the worst possible conclusion - Church leaders are LYING. Rather, I recognize that the Church is a HUGE organization, staffed mostly with volunteers with varying degrees of sophistication in terms of background. What's that mean? Some incorrect traditions may get taught as doctrine, some may over rely on "manuals" and materials focused on the basics, some may never be exposed to some of the alleged "bad" history until much later. But to infer intentionality is absurd; especially when the Church has done so much to see that the information is published and available. Where is the sense of personal responsibility (?), I have to wonder out loud.

For me, I have no problem if a person says they decided they just couldn't believe anymore. I get that. Where we come to loggerheads is when the ex-member claims to have FOUND that the Church isn't true - as if such a conclusion is irrefutable and the only reason I am still in the Church is because I haven't "found" all that they have. This, to me, is the essence of the hubris that I see as a recurring theme amongst so many of our "enlightened" critics and it is every bit a damaging defense mechanism as is the tendency for so many of our current members to dismiss our ex-members departure as prima facie evidence of some secret sins. Neither approach is valuable.

To my fellow members I say - let's abandon the stereotypes and not "guess" at what the "real" reasons might be for someone's departure. Let's take the explanations at face value and move on.

To my friends who are former-members - please, for the sake of beneficial discussion, drop the "I'm enlightened and you're not" attitude. Furthermore, if your comments are being driven significantly by anger/disappointment/emotion, then it may be time to take a break until you can speak more rationally about these topics.

Finally, the anger-filled ad-hominems have got to stop...on both sides. And, for our observing guests from PostMormon - the numerous cheap shots at Dr. Peterson ARE evidence that anger is ruling your day. Just let it go.

[ERayR]

Joseph Smith was 14 when he had the first vision? Joseph Smith was 22 when he began translating?

Help me out here, what is it called when you attack your opponent instead of his ideas?

Joseph Smith approach was to present alternative ideas. My complaint has not been my opponent but his approach. With your original approach you were not open to any new ideas. You were dogmatically proclaiming the LDS church and their doctrine as false. You now at least asking questions, though not so much about doctrinal differences, instead of dogmatically asserting the LDS is wrong.

Your list from a couple of posts ago is a good place to start. If you would now take them one at a time and read why some very intelligent people can approach these same issues and come out with an intact conviction of the truth of the LDS claims you could then start the process of diolog and learning. You may not change your mind but you will at least be able to see that they have some very good reasons for their stand on those issues.

Good Luck

[Daniel Peterson]

"Cheap shots"? At me?

What a shocking novelty.

I wasn't aware of them, but I'm scarcely surprised. It seems to make people feel better if they can demonize somebody, and, I suppose, I'm willing to be that somebody if it will help.

What do you suggest those of us who never heard about the disputed issues should have been doing or reading to get informed about them (circa 1966 to 1974)?

BYU Studies was doing wonderful things in Mormon history at the time. I wasn't Superman, but I subscribed.

The Ensign and, before that, the Improvement Era published relevant materials. I read them.

I bought and read various books. The first edition of Milton Backman's important book on the First Vision, for example, was published by Bookcraft in 1971, and was widely available in LDS bookstores. It includes the full texts of all of the various accounts.

Even a subscription to Dialogue would have helped. I subscribed.

I attended Education Week in southern California. It was very eye-opening.

And so on and so forth.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not only expected, but instructed by authorities. I was told by a general authority to behave as if I already had a testimony (so as to thereby get one somehow).

Actually that was Jesus. See John 7:17.

[ERMD]

Actually that was Jesus. See John 7:17.

Scripture Mastery!

[LifeOnaPlate]

But I am curious about one question you didn't answer before: What do you suggest those of us who never heard about the disputed issues should have been doing or reading to get informed about them (circa 1966 to 1974)?

Reading the very accessible History of the Church (6 volumes,) or B.H. Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church would have been a good start. Or maybe Dialogue, which started in 1966 or so. Or checking up on the Mormon History Association which started up back then as well, in addition to BYU Studies and then Sunstone a bit later. Further, the church's Improvement Era often featured articles on various issues being raised today, followed by the Ensign. FARMS, like Dialogue and other enterprises, was started up by laymen of the Church. They would have been available a few decades ago. Bitton and Arrington published The Mormon Experience in the 70s, I forget the publication dates for Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings, as well as The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Leonard and Allen. When did Juanita Brooks publish Mountain Meadows Massacre? The Tanners and UTLM have been publishing early Mormon texts since they started up way back when, as well.

These are just a few suggestions off the top of my head.

[Mortal Man]

Just, what you believe, is a deception. I believe you have been deceived. I believe I was deceived.

What do you suppose is the motivation behind the deception? Who is profiting from it? Do you suppose that Thomas Monson is cackling and gloating that he has fooled the Relief Society into taking meals to sick people?

[Kyle]

Joseph Smith approach was to present alternative ideas. My complaint has not been my opponent but his approach. With your original approach you were not open to any new ideas. You were dogmatically proclaiming the LDS church and their doctrine as false. You now at least asking questions, though not so much about doctrinal differences, instead of dogmatically asserting the LDS is wrong.

Your list from a couple of posts ago is a good place to start. If you would now take them one at a time and read why some very intelligent people can approach these same issues and come out with an intact conviction of the truth of the LDS claims you could then start the process of diolog and learning. You may not change your mind but you will at least be able to see that they have some very good reasons for their stand on those issues.

Good Luck

you keep on avoiding my questions here. Can the learning go both ways? If I have knowledge to gain from learning about others, don't you too? I could turn this whole thing around and say in your orignial approach you were not open to any new ideas,and you are dogmatically proclaiming the LDS church and their doctrine is true.

I am only 18 and yes, I can be arrogant, but I feel you are using a double standard here.

If you have any books or references to the list I made previously I would be glad to research them.

[Mortal Man]

I have some "fruit" I would like you to try.

This sounds vaguely familiar.

[Andrew Callahan]

This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

I have not left the church in the sense that I am still a member, but I am inactive, and I don't believe many of the "fact claims" of the Church.

This is the heart of the issue to me. The Church promoted a great number of "fact claims" about the early history of the church (e.g. the 1838 version of the First Vision, angelic John the Baptist and Peter, James & John restoring the priesthood, etc.) that are certainly now questionable based on evidence available. Scholarly work done by BH Roberts about problems with the BoM and presented to the Twelve and the First Presidency, calls into question many aspects of the BoM. Nonetheless, the Church, through its leaders who are sustained as prophets, seers, revelators, General Authorities, stake presidents, bishops, etc. presented the BoM as a literally true, historically accurate book about the early inhabitants of the western hemisphere. After egyptologists (sp?) translated the Book of Abraham and found it didn't contain anything that Joseph Smith said it contained, the church continued to offer it as a teaching from Abraham, etc.

In my case, I can say answer Deborah's question and say that if I had been told these things earlier, I might have been able to reconcile them, and continue in the church. The problem, as I see it, is the feeling of having been lied to.

There was some discussion of Scientology earlier in this thread. I know virtually nothing of that belief system. I know that some folks here become offended when compared to Scientologists, and certainly I don't mean to offend by mentioning it again. Scientologists have "fact claims" in their belief system, also. Something about Xenu or something. All or most of us here reject the fact claims made about Xenu based on our own belief system that in most of us probably includes at least some elements of religious, rational, scientific, or logical thinking and/or world view. We feel we have sufficient information to reject the fact claims made by Scientology about Xenu and/or other Scientology concepts.

Some Scientologists probably have information similar to ours about the fact claims made about Scientology, yet do not reject those fact claims, because they have found a way to reconcile the information and make it fit in with their belief system.

In the case of Mormonism, I knew that Joseph Smith was a polygamist from before the time I joined the church---the missionaries told me up front, it wasn't a deal breaker. I can't definitively say that had the problems with the BoM or BoA, etc. been shared with me as openly and honestly as JS's polygamy had that I would have still joined the church, but I can clearly and definitively say, that had I joined knowing that there were problems, etc. I would not have had the terrible feeling of being lied to.

I'm truly glad that many or most of you folks here don't feel you were lied to by the church and its leaders. That's what it seemed like to me, and that has caused me great pain and anguish.

My thought is that a more honest presentation of the church's history might cause a slower growth in the church (from the apparently breakneck pace that has been reported in the last many decades), but might also cause fewer people to fall away for feeling they have been deceived.

I think this is a good question, Deborah, and I don't think that everyone who has fallen away based on learning church history LATER would have fallen away had they learned it earlier, because in my dealings with many, many disaffected Mormons, the most damaging thing is not the HISTORY, but rather the the feeling of having been lied to about the history. For some, the information, the history is the deal breaker, but my experience tells me that the deal breaker is most often the feeling that the church and its leaders cannot be trusted to be honest. And that, in my opinion, is tragic.

[Daniel Peterson]

Some people seem to believe that, before the internet, no information about Mormonism was available at all except at the price of superhuman effort -- and, even then, only for the rare darling of fate for whom all the stars aligned in an auspicious pattern occurring only once every three or four generations.

Having lived through those dark ages, though, I can assure the youngsters that reading and writing were possible then, and that books and articles were rather easily available.

While the internet offers some wonderful things, it's not quite the epochal universally-transforming invention that some imagine it to be. Junky arguments are still junky arguments, even if on a message board. Decontextualized facts still lack proper context, even if a blog is well-designed. Falsehoods remain falsehoods, even when they're repeated by hundreds or thousands of impassioned people staring into computer screens in quest of vengeance against their former faith. It does, however, allow bad arguments and flimsy evidence to circulate wider, faster. It can do the same, of course, for good arguments and solid evidence, but, as the British preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon said in an 1855 sermon, "If you want truth to go round the world you must hire an express train to pull it; but if you want a lie to go round the world, it will fly: it is as light as a feather, and a breath will carry it. It is well said in the old proverb, 'A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.'" We've been far too slow to respond.

And, I might suggest to myself and to others, we who believe in the claims of the Restoration might well spend our efforts better elsewhere, with people actually searching for the truth, than duking it out here and in similar places with people whose minds are closed on the subject. And I don't just mean off line.

[krose]

BYU Studies was doing wonderful things in Mormon history at the time. I wasn't Superman, but I subscribed.

The Ensign and, before that, the Improvement Era published relevant materials. I read them.

I bought and read various books. The first edition of Milton Backman's important book on the First Vision, for example, was published by Bookcraft in 1971, and was widely available in LDS bookstores. It includes the full texts of all of the various accounts.

Even a subscription to Dialogue would have helped. I subscribed.

I attended Education Week in southern California. It was very eye-opening.

And so on and so forth.

Reading the very accessible History of the Church (6 volumes,) or B.H. Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church would have been a good start. Or maybe Dialogue, which started in 1966 or so. Or checking up on the Mormon History Association which started up back then as well, in addition to BYU Studies and then Sunstone a bit later. Further, the church's Improvement Era often featured articles on various issues being raised today, followed by the Ensign. FARMS, like Dialogue and other enterprises, was started up by laymen of the Church. They would have been available a few decades ago. Bitton and Arrington published The Mormon Experience in the 70s, I forget the publication dates for Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings, as well as The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Leonard and Allen. When did Juanita Brooks publish Mountain Meadows Massacre? The Tanners and UTLM have been publishing early Mormon texts since they started up way back when, as well.

These are just a few suggestions off the top of my head.

Thanks to both of you. Other than the history books and the official magazines, I didn't know most of those existed at the time. Out of the loop, I guess (and I probably wouldn't have been interested in church history as a hobby in my youth). I did sometimes read the church magazines as a kid, but I don't remember running across anything surprising.