For those who felt deceived

[Kyle]

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.

I don't think anyone here believes that the internet is infallible. But the fact is all those books and articles you talk about are on the internet now. Almost every piece of information humans have ever come across is on the net., the truth and the false. It is up to the individual to discern what the truth is. I guess that is how life is in any situation.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is up to the individual to discern what the truth is. I guess that is how life is in any situation.

Yup.

[krose]

Actually that was Jesus. See John 7:17.

I'm sure you know that he was referring to the BK Packer speech in which he advised missionaries to deliver a testimony as if they actually had one, and that after telling people for a while that you know things, it would become true and you would actually have the testimony you said you did.

But it was clever nonetheless.

[Scott26.2]

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.

Thank-you, thank-you thank-you. I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. Since, however, I do not possess the same talents for a well-worded and well-reasoned statement such as this I can only say...without hesitation, and without shame...that's what I would have said, if only I could have said it!!! Right on!

Scott26.2

[JLFuller]

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

I need a sign with flashing letters that says "this is sarcasm".

[Ipso Facto]

Andrew Callahan:

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.

I cite the quote above as exhibit #1 that Andrew's disbelief results not from any original reading/study/research/etc., but rather from buying into the prepared lists of "reasons I lost faith" that one can now find easily on ex-Mormon message boards and the like. One can copy and paste these things and have a "talking-points-approved" list of reasons for their apostasy.

Nevermind that Andrew clearly has no idea what the issues really are, but he's been assured by his apostate buddies that egyptologists have now translated the Book of Abraham and found out that it doesn't contain anything that Joseph Smith said it did.

LOL!

What a classic example Andrew has become, and it's obvious that he doesn't even know why!

OK, Andrew, we understand that you feel you were lied to, and we feel appropriately sorry for you. Move along now.

Next ...

[Mortal Man]

I don't really know how the Church can compel its members to pay attention, though.

This one is over the top.

How many lessons has the correlation dept. put together on comparing and contrasting the various accounts of the First Vision?

The translation of the BoA is not even listed in the timeline in this year's Gospel Doctrine study guide. Shouldn't the oldest autographic book of scripture in all our Standard Works receive even brief mention? How many Sunday School lessons have there been on the facsimilies?

I agree that the information is readily available. But to get it you have to skulk about on seedy websites like FAIR and FARMS.

[Andrew Callahan]

I cite the quote above as exhibit #1 that Andrew's disbelief results not from any original reading/study/research/etc., but rather from buying into the prepared lists of "reasons I lost faith" that one can now find easily on ex-Mormon message boards and the like. One can copy and paste these things and have a "talking-points-approved" list of reasons for their apostasy.

Nevermind that Andrew clearly has no idea what the issues really are, but he's been assured by his apostate buddies that egyptologists have now translated the Book of Abraham and found out that it doesn't contain anything that Joseph Smith said it did.

LOL!

What a classic example Andrew has become, and it's obvious that he doesn't even know why!

OK, Andrew, we understand that you feel you were lied to, and we feel appropriately sorry for you. Move along now.

Next ...

Is it Christ-like of you to laugh at me, and dismiss me? You seem rude. I hope I didn't do anything to encourage rude behavior, and if I in any way encouraged it, I apologize. That was not my intent. My intent was to answer as sincerely as I could what Deborah said was her sincere question.

Was this post of yours some sincere effort to help someone gain understanding?

[ttribe]

This one is over the top.

How many lessons has the correlation dept. put together on comparing and contrasting the various accounts of the First Vision?

The translation of the BoA is not even listed in the timeline in this year's Gospel Doctrine study guide. Shouldn't the oldest book of scripture in all our Standard Works receive even brief mention? How many Sunday School lessons have you had on the facsimilies?

I agree that the information is readily available. But to get it you have to skulk about on seedy websites like FAIR and FARMS.

You mean things like this: Ensign Article (1997)

Or this: Ensign Article (1994)

[ttribe]

I cite the quote above as exhibit #1 that Andrew's disbelief results not from any original reading/study/research/etc., but rather from buying into the prepared lists of "reasons I lost faith" that one can now find easily on ex-Mormon message boards and the like. One can copy and paste these things and have a "talking-points-approved" list of reasons for their apostasy.

Nevermind that Andrew clearly has no idea what the issues really are, but he's been assured by his apostate buddies that egyptologists have now translated the Book of Abraham and found out that it doesn't contain anything that Joseph Smith said it did.

LOL!

What a classic example Andrew has become, and it's obvious that he doesn't even know why!

OK, Andrew, we understand that you feel you were lied to, and we feel appropriately sorry for you. Move along now.

Next ...

Totally unnecessary.

[Scott26.2]

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.

Andrew, you didn't do anything to encourage rude behavior and I'm sure Ipso Facto wasn't trying to be as abrupt as he came off, especially to someone who is new. I think it's just that a lot of posters (I hope I can speak for a multitude) who post on this board grow weary of, and feel true sorrow for those who suddenly "see the light" after learning something that, for whatever reason-not usually to deceive, was kept back from them.

Furthermore, what "problems" are you talking about concerning the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham? Because if it's the same old same olds...do a search, they have been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Could it be that the "problems" you never knew about when you were baptized really aren't problems at all?

Keep posting...

Scott26.2

[Deborah]

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.

If you've read some of the comments, you will see that none of this evidence you have just discovered is new. It's been around a long time and available if one was really interested in finding it. I think this is what is frustrating for many of us in that we keep hearing the same criticisms as though it is all somehow new information, which it isn't.

Seriously, Andrew, were you really interested in reading any of this when you were young? I wasn't particularly interested until I got to college. What I do think is sad is that the source of your discovery seems to put the anti slant on everything, ie, the Book of Abraham, which has been thoroughly discussed by faithful scholars and, to me, more than adequately explained. I wonder why it's so easy to believe the internet accounts put out by the critics and so hard to believe faithful scholars who have looked at material that many of the antis haven't had access to.

[ERayR]

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.

I am not avoiding your question. To answer, I have been studying the things you find new and compelling for well over 50 years now. And yes I have learned a lot and am still learning. I followed the same procedure I have outlined for you above. Take your issues one by one and start threads to discuss them and you will learn. But first you might want to read what FAIR and FARMS has to say to kind of balance what you have pickup at the anti sites. I am busy most days earning a living and don't have time to do your research qnd my own research and my job. Take some initative and go to those two sites then come back and start some threads on individual issues.

[Andrew Callahan]

Andrew, you didn't do anything to encourage rude behavior and I'm sure Ipso Facto wasn't trying to be as abrupt as he came off, especially to someone who is new. I think it's just that a lot of us (I hope I can speak for a multitude) who post on this board grow weary of, and feel true sorrow for those who suddenly see the light after learning something that, for whatever reason-not usually to deceive, was kept back from them. Furthermore, what "problems" are you talking about concerning the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham? Because if it's the same old same old's...do a search, they have been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Could it be that the "problems" you never knew about when you were baptized really aren't problems at all?

Scott26.2

I offered my comment in relation specifically to Deborah's question about feeling deceived, and what might have been one's reaction if information received LATER had been received EARLIER. My feeling is that at least in my case, and I believe in the case of many others, it WOULD have made a difference. In some cases had the information been received earlier that at least some of the people who are now disaffected Mormons, would still active Mormons, others, might never have joined and become disaffected.

I didn't come here in hopes of getting answers to "problems" in the BoM. My intent was not to open old wounds or things bring up a sore subject, but rather to answer Deborah's question.

[Scott26.2]

I wonder why it's so easy to believe the internet accounts put out by the critics and so hard to believe faithful scholars who have looked at material that many of the antis haven't had access to?

Wonderful question. This seems to be the heart of the matter. What would happen if those who felt deceived after finding something on the internet from a critic or disgruntled ex-mormon, always reserved judgement until they read and studied something from a "believing faithful scholar"? If only that would happen.

Scott26.2

[Mortal Man]

You mean things like this: Ensign Article (1997)

Or this: Ensign Article (1994)

The 1997 article is a faith-promoting fluff piece. The 1994 article is okay, but unfortunately it has a fictitious author.

[Deborah]

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.

Several people have made this comment, but I'm wondering how they would suggest the church be "more honest." Polygamy is no longer practiced. Blacks have the Priesthood, and there were many faithful black members even before that. The BOA with all the questions about its origins is some of the most beautiful and profound scripture we have.

The purpose of missionary work is to find the sheep who hear Christ's voice. For all of those who claim we need to tell more, do you realize how many people come into the church and accept it readily because they were searching for something and recognized it when they heard it? They really aren't swayed by any of the colorful history as presented by antis. So it really is a handful, relatively speaking, who are crying for more of the past to be revealed. And based on most of the comments here, it wouldn't have made any difference in the end to what you ended up doing, except for Tarski who could have enjoyed the wild life sooner.

I do appreciate that for some reason some of you felt out of the loop when you discovered things you didn't know. But a lot of other people didn't learn these things until later and had a different response. So once again it doesn't seem to be the information which is the deciding factor but something else. I'm not even going to try to address that because only God can see into a person's heart. Each person has to live with his/her own decision and some appear to be happy with the choice and some are still trying to reconcile with what they think they know and want to believe. I would suggest if you are still struggling you get off the internet, subscribe to BYU tv and listen to the doctrinal disussions on our standard works, the Sperry symposiums etc, and get Truman Madsen's cd's or DVD's on the restoration and Joseph Smith. These will give you an entirely different perspective.

[ttribe]

The 1997 article is a faith-promoting fluff piece. The 1994 article is okay, but unfortunately it was written by a pretty obscure author.

Well...really, my point was there is, in fact, information through normal channels which can be obtained relatively easily...I found both articles with a 20 second search on the Church's website. Presumably, prior to such searchable interfaces, we were receiving the Ensign in our homes and reading these things as they came out. And, if not, the fault lies with us; not the Church correlation committee.

Oh, and LOL at the "obscure author" comment.

[Andrew Callahan]

If you've read some of the comments, you will see that none of this evidence you have just discovered is new. It's been around a long time and available if one was really interested in finding it. I think this is what is frustrating for many of us in that we keep hearing the same criticisms as though it is all somehow new information, which it isn't.

Seriously, Andrew, were you really interested in reading any of this when you were young? I wasn't particularly interested until I got to college. What I do think is sad is that the source of your discovery seems to put the anti slant on everything, ie, the Book of Abraham, which has been thoroughly discussed by faithful scholars and, to me, more than adequately explained. I wonder why it's so easy to believe the internet accounts put out by the critics and so hard to believe faithful scholars who have looked at material that many of the antis haven't had access to.

Actually, Deborah, I almost never read this board, but have carefully read every comment on this thread.

I can only share with you my experience and what others have told me. While I wouldn't have been interested in reading any of this stuff when young, I would have been interested in reading it at age 27, when I was investigating and joined the church. I was taught by two successive senior missionary couples, joined the church and was active for 17 years, accepting all callings, etc. I have sent two sons on missions. Although I am a convert, my wife comes from pioneer stock, and my children are at least fifth generation Mormons.

My wife a life-long member, had never heard of the problems with the BoM that BH Roberts wrote about until very recently.

And, I can't offer this as conclusive or authoritative, but one reason why people might be inclined to believe internet accounts put out by critics of the church is that there clearly ARE examples of things the church HAS intentionally downplayed (or possibly even distorted or lied about) and when someone finds one thing that seems to be a lie, and then another that seems to be a lie, then it is pretty easy to believe that everything could have been a lie.

As I stated in my example. Knowing about Joseph Smith's polygamy before baptism was not a deal breaker for me. Perhaps knowing that about anachronisms in the BoM or the multiple first vision stories, etc. wouldn't have been deal breakers for me either, I can't really say at this point.

And now, today, the BH Roberts concerns with the BoM aren't new to me, either. But they are still new ideas to some people, when they find out what the Assistant Church Historian, and general authority discovered, wrote, and shared with the First Presidency, it would be better if that information came from the church than if it came from some other source. If they find out from some source other than the church, they are likely to feel betrayed by the church.

[Kyle]

I am not avoiding your question. To answer, I have been studying the things you find new and compelling for well over 50 years now. And yes I have learned a lot and am still learning. I followed the same procedure I have outlined for you above. Take your issues one by one and start threads to discuss them and you will learn. But first you might want to read what FAIR and FARMS has to say to kind of balance what you have pickup at the anti sites. I am busy most days earning a living and don't have time to do your research qnd my own research and my job. Take some initative and go to those two sites then come back and start some threads on individual issues.

So did you just admit to a double standard? I appreciate the websites, but do you honestly think that I have not looked there? Do you honestly think I have not seen all the standard answers both the Mormon church and christians normally give? Do you honestly think that I have not been critically analyzing the threads and the posts on here? Why do you think I am here? To take jabs at people? To make myself feel superior? Is it possible that I have not found answers to those questions, and I am constantly searching for anyone who claims to have answers? Or is this not normal 18 year old behavior?

Hopefully you will see that my age was nothing to do with my intellectual capacity or my critical thinking, and I welcome anybody or anything that can answer my questions in a new way.

[LifeOnaPlate]

[m29173]

...........QUOTE(wintersfootsteps @ Mar 16 2009, 11:57 AM) *

There are countless examples, I could literally go on and on... Sure, these historical events are available to anyone who seeks them, but it is honest to portray history in a way that isn't 100% correct? No.

You've never encountered a history that is 100% complete. Such a thing is impossible............

the issue at hand is not that history is not 100% complete. the real issue is that the temporal arm (speak church) of the almighty is expected to be 100 % up front, 100% correct, 100% forthcoming without white washing its own history. at least as long as we are to believe that god is the leader of this church and infallible and without flaw.........

[ttribe]

...........QUOTE(wintersfootsteps @ Mar 16 2009, 11:57 AM) *

There are countless examples, I could literally go on and on... Sure, these historical events are available to anyone who seeks them, but it is honest to portray history in a way that isn't 100% correct? No.

You've never encountered a history that is 100% complete. Such a thing is impossible............

the issue at hand is not that history is not 100% complete. the real issue is that the temporal arm (speak church) of the almighty is expected to be 100 % up front, 100% correct, 100% forthcoming without white washing its own history. at least as long as we are to believe that god is the leader of this church and infallible and without flaw.........

For clarification's sake - do you mean God is "infallible and without flaw" (which is something we claim) or that Church leadership is "infallible and without flaw" (which we DO NOT claim)?

[beastie]

I grew up in southern California. My father was a non-member; my mother was a semi-active member. My ward was not particularly intellectual. In fact, based on my experience since that time, it was perhaps a bit sub-par in that respect. I had no LDS friends at school.

Nobody had to "tell" me that other stories existed. Nobody informed me that multiple First Vision accounts existed. I found these things out for myself -- early and easily -- because I was interested in Mormon history and doctrine and read a lot. As I've pointed out, the fact that various accounts of the First Vision exist has been commonplace in Dialogue, BYU Studies, multiple books on Church history (including the kind available in a typical Seagull or Deseret bookstore), and even the Ensign for decades now. I don't really know how the Church can compel its members to pay attention, though.

As fascinating as your personal history may be, it is absolutely immaterial to my past situation as a 19-year-old investigator. I had barely heard of mormonism, and had never heard of Dialogue, BYU Studies, Deseret bookstores, or the Ensign.

After becoming a member, I slowly began to learn about these different sources, and slowly began to learn the information that helped me doubt the church. However, none of this could help me as a 19-year-old investigator, trying to decide whether or not to devote her life to the truthfulness of the LDS church.

The LDS church spends an inordinate amount of time repeating very basic information in Sunday School, priesthood, and Relief Society. It can't compel its members to pay attention to that, either, but many do. Perhaps instead of editing out information about early polygamy, for example, the church could openly deal with the issue in some of those lessons.

Frankly, I don't care what the LDS church does or doesn't do. But if I were a betting woman, I would bet that it won't be too much longer before we do see the LDS church dealing with these issues in church settings, instead of members having to find out these things on their own. I think they are testing the waters now with works that while not being published by the church, seem to have the approval of the brethren (Massacre and Rough stone Rolling). My guess is that they realize some form of inoculation might be useful, even while defenders of the faith on the internet would prefer to blame members for remaining ignorant about things they have no reason to suspect in the first place. Given the fact that certain issues tend to have an impact on the faith of members, it would seem to indicate that those issues are interpreted as having something to do with the most basic truth claims of the church, so there's no reason for members to have to become church historian hobbyists before finding out these issues exist. They clearly have to do with basic truth claims, else they would not impact the faith of so many.

As I said in my first response, I'm certain I would have lost faith whenever I learned about these things, but as another poster pointed out, I would not have felt misled in the meantime.

[dblagent007]

I can't condemn the church for the way it has chosen to teach its history. The church is interested in putting its best foot forward and it's unrealistic to expect it to devote substantial time to an examination of its warts. I mean, who does this? No individual or entity devotes substantial time to an examination of its warts.

Having said that, I wish the church would focus more on difficult and/or embarrassing aspects of church history and doctrine (I try to teach it to my primary class).

One way in which my eyes have been opened is that I can now understand how some people can view the evidence (church history, BOM archeaology, BOA, polygamy, etc.) and decide that the church is not true. Previously, my paradigm didn't really allow for this. Apostates left the church for two reasons: (1) sin, (2) never had testimony, or (3) deny the sun while it was shining on them. Now I can see that there are a lot of legitimate reasons people may leave the church. I hope that apostates can see that there are a lot of legitimate reasons believers choose to believe.