For those who felt deceived

[rodheadlee]

"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."

BINGO!! Thanks Deborah for pointing that out. This exactly how we "found the Church" By the time the missionaries came to our door we had been studying with several different churches for quite a few years and we were ready to accept the Church of Jesus Christ as His latter day work in progress. I was amazed at the Book of Mormon and I knew all along that there had to be more to the story than just the Bible.

I love the Book of Mormon and I believe that all of the anachronistic "problems" will sort out eventually. I also believe that to hold Joseph Smith to some higher standard than King David or King Solomon is unreasonable.

[m29173]

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)?

god

[ttribe]

god

So, assuming God exists (which I'm thinking you don't accept at this point), your assertion is that He should intervene in all aspects of the Church to ensure 100% accuracy of all historical accounts? Agency and the human condition be damned. Do I have that correct?

[MichaelW]

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.

Why would only "faithful" scholars conclude that the Book of Abraham was genuine?

[ERayR]

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.

Nope I did not admit to a double standard. I told you that I have spent well over 50 years doing what I suggested that you do.

If you have seriously studied all that was on those two websites you have found answers. They are just not the answers you wanted or were prepared to accept. There are many intelligent people, even on this board, who find the information compelling enough to stay with the church. If you don't all I can say is I'm sorry that is your loss. you are missing out on a wonderful experience by dismissing them out of hand. It is not one particular bit of information but if you start adding them up it becomes quite compelling.

I never ever thought that age had anything to do with intellectual capacity. There are some very young posters on this board who I struggle to keep up with sometimes. Critical thinking skills however are a learned thing and do improve with practice. However, that said I don't see you lacking in that area for your age and experience.

As for answering you questions that will be up to you. All anybody here can do is point you to the information, you will do with it what you will. Just remember the information you have just dismised is very persuasive to some very inteligent people. It might be a worthwhile venture to take another look at it from the point of trying to understand why they would find it persuasive and you don't.

You seem to be asking for someone to tell you the answers yet when you are pointed to information that will help you formulate your own answers you reject it out of hand.

I am trying real hard here to get you to do some of that critical thinking instead of dismissing the information that will help you in that endeavor.

[LDS1973]

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.

My journey out of the church began when I felt that the promised rewards weren't worth the effort. I spent a year researching the church as a means of strengthening my testimony but this actually destroyed it. I do feel that the church deceived me. It makes a difference because I had many positive experiences in the church and would feel better ab out going back if the leadership would not only openly admit the faults, but would stop claiming what is obvious to an objective observer things that are simply not as the church claims, e.g. JS story, BoM, Temple, restoration. As far as I am concerned, as long as they keep covering up and lying about their history and doctrines (I still remember Pres. H's 'I don't know that we teach that' statement). I will remain a stranger.

Michael

[Terrestialbound]

I sure feel deceived by all the pat answers I got before I joined the Church. The feeling of being deceived has to do with trust issues for me. If

people I put my trust and faith in lie to me, I feel deceived. so many of the answers I got turned out to be false - either lies by omission or lies by commision. Some probably did not know the answers. When I studied my questions my main concerns were:

- Polygamy and the lies and deception to cover it up

- historical revisionism - moving sections of doctrines and covenants - the changes of BOM - The airbrushed protrayal of JS.

- The Book of Abraham problems

- racism, anti-feminism and the latest denial of civil rights to gays and Lesbians (LDS disrespectful forcing their values on

others)

- The staggering amount of Sexual child abuse cases - bishops raping and burning children. LDS members attacking victims

- lost trust in the gift of discernment of Ecclesiastical leaders (Often non-existent9

- the great discrepancies about what GAs and spokesman say and the Actions of LDS members

- I did not knwo about the paranoia - the food storage and the 3 days survival backpack

- The changes in the Endowment Ceremony (God is eternal the same yesterday - today and in the future - but changes his mind all the time)

- Sunday School classes where I heard about JS bleowed Emma to Ad nauseum - thinking about his 32 other wives

- experiencing no Christlike love for the poor, the sick and the dying (some disfellowshipped members)

- meeting many very depressed and unhappy women staying in loveless marriages

- pristhoodholders more busy with their callings than the needs of their families

- The Church Spending billions on huge shoppings malls very close to Temple Square and very little on charity

- meeting apologist that defend the chruch even when the Chruch and it

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Andrew, since you seem committed to 'full disclosure' as a basic principle, can we safely assume that those TV news programmes which last year ran stories about a faithful 'high priest in good standing in the Mormon Church' who was being persecuted and threatened with excommunication solely because he disagreed with the Church's stand on Proposition 8 did so only after you had disclosed to them that, for months before this time, you had been an active member of an internet forum for those who consider themselves to be 'ex-Mormons' and that you had warned your friends on that forum to watch out for the media storm which you were planning to create in order to embarrass the Church?

[LDS1973]

Hordak

I have only been a member of the church since 1958 but I have to tell you that I have never heard of some the things you bring up in your post. Where did you get some of this stuff? Have you been reading the God Makers again? Come on old buddy. You know that the JoD is not doctrine and that doctrine is established by living prophets and opinions by dead people are just opinions and not doctrine. You should know by now that deification is a first century Christian belief still believed by many of the early church fathers and spoke about clear into the fifth century. You should also know that the whole polygamy story is still not understood or told.

You have been drinking the Koolaid for far too long! Except for the 'handicapped' comment I remember all of these things, and more.

As far as JoD not being doctrine, I would REALLY LIKE TO SEE an official statement of LDS doctrine. You will find that there is none. When Bruce McConkie made a stab at it in Mormon Doctrine he was shot down by the bretheren. You see, the leadership wants the doctrines to be confusing and mushy because it gives them wiggle room. When you try to make sense of what could be considered LDS doctrine, it is a complete mess -- I did this for a year. So if God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then either there are multiple Gods, He has multiple personalities, He keeps changing his mind, or, um, He has never nor does now speak to the LDS prophets, starting with JS through the present day. I place my bets on the latter.

Michael

[Pahoran]

Yes, Iâ??ve read this proposed theory before. I didnâ??t mention it because I didnâ??t think it worth mentioning, but I should have anticipated someone would still attempt it.

So what are you telling us, exactly?

That you offered your "either-or" solution set as if it were exhaustive, knowing that you were making a false assertion?

Or that you genuinely imagine that your opinions rise to the level of facts?

This theory makes no sense in the context of Sylviaâ??s statements to Josephine. If Sylvia was referring simply to Josephine being sealed to JS (and taken from her biological father in the next life, of course) then she wouldnâ??t have stressed the great secrecy involved. She also would not single out Josephine alone, because the other children would also belong to Joseph in the next life.

Well now then beastie, given that we have seen a demonstration of how reliable your opinions are, I'd prefer to see the primary sources on this, rather than merely take your word for it.

This is a CFR, beastie. Put up or shut up, please. To make the assertions you offer so dogmatically, you must have at your fingertips:

1) Sylvia's own first-hand statement, either authored by her, or dictated and taken down in her presence.

2) A medical certificate as to her state of mind when the statement was given.

3) Complete records showing the dates of all her marriages, all her sealings, and the births of all her children.

Please produce them.

You also ignore the other statements â?? including legal affidavits â?? that demonstrate JS did have marital relations with at least some of his wives.

That is a fact not in dispute. It is also not disputed that Joseph did not have marital relations with at least some of his wives. The "libido" asinumption (I do not call it a theory because it never rose to that level) is not seriously entertained by anyone with two clues to rub together.

These three elements combine to make the theory that it referred to the sealing alone highly unlikely.

The third "element" is irrelevant and incompetent, and the first two remain ambiguous.

Again, the fact that believers struggle so mightily against this indicates that it is, indeed, a very troubling topic.

She gloated, and not for the first time.

I congratulate you, beastie. It must take considerable talent to type while rubbing your hands together with gleeful schadenfreude.

But I rather suspect that, like many other anti-Mormons, you overestimate just how "troubling" your favourite line of attack really is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

You have been drinking the Koolaid for far too long! Except for the 'handicapped' comment I remember all of these things, and more.

As far as JoD not being doctrine, I would REALLY LIKE TO SEE an official statement of LDS doctrine. You will find that there is none. When Bruce McConkie made a stab at it in Mormon Doctrine he was shot down by the bretheren. You see, the leadership wants the doctrines to be confusing and mushy because it gives them wiggle room. When you try to make sense of what could be considered LDS doctrine, it is a complete mess -- I did this for a year. So if God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then either there are multiple Gods, He has multiple personalities, He keeps changing his mind, or, um, He has never nor does now speak to the LDS prophets, starting with JS through the present day. I place my bets on the latter.

Michael

No the church wants to leave the individual free to seek revelation from God on their own. Joseph Smith once said he longed for the day when every member was a prophet themselves. When asked how he goverend such a group he said I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. Quite the opposite of what you are positing.

[Hermes]

You have been drinking the Koolaid for far too long!

Michael

take 3 days off for your offensive "kool aid" remark~hermes

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

And there we have it. Condemned by your own general disinterest, imo.

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.

I know what the reference was, and I know where Pres. Packer got the general idea as well. And again, I refer you to John 7:17.

[m29173]

So, assuming God exists (which I'm thinking you don't accept at this point), your assertion is that He should intervene in all aspects of the Church to ensure 100% accuracy of all historical accounts? Agency and the human condition be damned. Do I have that correct?

the god you want to believe in is described as unfailing, the same yesterday today and forever.....agreed ?

that being the case there shouldnt be any question whatsoever in terms of what he reveals , his rules, logistics etc....

if god says 2 plus 2 is 4, then thats how it is. unfortunately the mormon church(and by the way - not only the mormon church) believes 2 plus 2 is not exactly 4. may be 3 1/2 , may be 4 1/8, depending on which way the political and bottom line($) wind is blowing from.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I see you've done your classic former mormon research. Book of Abraham, B.H. Roberts, etc.

[ttribe]

the god you want to believe in is described as unfailing, the same yesterday today and forever.....agreed ?

that being the case there shouldnt be any question whatsoever in terms of what he reveals , his rules, logistics etc....

if god says 2 plus 2 is 4, then thats how it is. unfortunately the mormon church(and by the way - not only the mormon church) believes 2 plus 2 is not exactly 4. may be 3 1/2 , may be 4 1/8, depending on which way the political and bottom line($) wind is blowing from.

State your case, then, instead of just a bunch of cheap platitudes.

[Deborah]

Why would only "faithful" scholars conclude that the Book of Abraham was genuine?

Did I say "only." However the criticism stems from lack of information, not because we have too much information. I think it is a little hasty to make life changing decisions based on lack of information, and this can be said about any of the other issues which are examined a couple of hundred years from the events given the limited records the critics have had access to.

[Deborah]

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.

Yes, but don't you think you should examine the evidence on the other side of the table before making a life-changing decision? You may have done a lot of reading but the question is have you read or listened to the works of those who have actually read some of the old journals and letters in the archives and come away with stronger testimonies?

[Deborah]

depending on which way the political and bottom line($) wind is blowing from.

??? I wonder what scholarly and factual sources you've been reading?

[Andrew Callahan]

Andrew, since you seem committed to 'full disclosure' as a basic principle, can we safely assume that those TV news programmes which last year ran stories about a faithful 'high priest in good standing in the Mormon Church' who was being persecuted and threatened with excommunication solely because he disagreed with the Church's stand on Proposition 8 did so only after you had disclosed to them that, for months before this time, you had been an active member of an internet forum for those who consider themselves to be 'ex-Mormons' and that you had warned your friends on that forum to watch out for the media storm which you were planning to create in order to embarrass the Church?

This thread isn't about me, it's about "those who felt deceived." As one who felt deceived, I answered as honestly and openly as I could to Deborah's question.

Now, regarding your question, in every interview I had last year with media folks, I did tell them I was a high priest "in good standing" (a phrase my stake leaders had on several occasions instructed me meant that no sanctions of any kind were in force against the person in question), but I also went out of my way to tell them that I had not been to church in a couple of years. Journalists do the stories as they see them, and pick what to highlight. One interview of 45 minutes that I did ended up with a 2.5 min story, including the intro by the reporter, some comments from me, analysis by the reporter, comments from my bishop, etc. Some media stories included the fact that I was not currently attending church, some did not, but I told them all. Further, which websites/blogs/boards I read and/or posted on the Internet did in fact come up with some of reporters, because, yes, I brought it up. I don't believe any reported what websites I visited, other than the one I helped start. And, your claim that I "warned" anyone to "watch out for the media storm" that I was "planning to create in order to embarrass the Church" doesn't ring a bell with me. I did post to various boards that certain media attention was upcoming, but I don't see any harm in that. There are frequent posts on lots of discussion boards about media stories, discussions on other boards, etc. That's how I found this thread. I guess I don't understand the problem of sharing information, because, I felt I did that honestly, too. I didn't, for example, tell people to "Watch Channel 56 in Dallas" when I knew I was going to be on the radio in Salt Lake.

And, yes, I told the media folks that I had been actively campaigning in opposition to the Church's position on Prop 8, through a letter-writing campaign and a website. And, I directed them to the YouTube video I did, in which I describe the kooky publicity stunt I pulled. And, some of the media folks were less interested in talking to me as a result of the publicity stunt.

So, I think the answer is, yes. I am committed to "full disclosure" as a basic principle.

But, as I mentioned, this thread isn't about me. It purported to be a question sincerely seeking the input of folks who felt deceived by the church as it related to historicity, etc.

If that is indeed the point of this thread, and if anyone actually cares about people who feel hurt and damaged by the church, I have offered my thoughts (as have others). The corresponding thread at PostMo (mentioned earlier by AZ_RM http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/...ewthread/14431/ ) contains a lot of thoughts by folks who felt deceived. For those who care, and want to learn something, and possibly find a way to make things better, you may want to read that thread as well. If you have some other agenda, then you may not want to read that thread.

I have sat in General Conference many times when apostles have told us to go and find the lost sheep, and invite them back. As one of those "lost sheep" I can honestly say I doubt I'll ever come back, because I feel I have been hurt that badly. Notwithstanding that, however, I have no desire to see others hurt, and I came here and offered my thoughts to someone who claimed to be trying to understand disaffected Mormons, and for my attempt to help someone gain understanding I have been laughed at, dismissed, and had my honesty questioned. I am disappointed by that.

[m29173]

??? I wonder what scholarly and factual sources you've been reading?

i went to the school of life and hard knocks. the result is called experience, looking from the outside in, thinking outside the box..... no scholarly work can replace that - ever. but if you want to talk scholarly, why dont you make your case with SCHOLARLY quotes......

did you just call me wacko ?...lol...

[Daniel Peterson]

- Polygamy and the lies and deception to cover it up

- historical revisionism - moving sections of doctrines and covenants - the changes of BOM - The airbrushed protrayal of JS.

- The Book of Abraham problems

- racism, anti-feminism and the latest denial of civil rights to gays and Lesbians (LDS disrespectful forcing their values on

others)

- The staggering amount of Sexual child abuse cases - bishops raping and burning children. LDS members attacking victims

- lost trust in the gift of discernment of Ecclesiastical leaders (Often non-existent9

- the great discrepancies about what GAs and spokesman say and the Actions of LDS members

- I did not knwo about the paranoia - the food storage and the 3 days survival backpack

- The changes in the Endowment Ceremony (God is eternal the same yesterday - today and in the future - but changes his mind all the time)

- Sunday School classes where I heard about JS bleowed Emma to Ad nauseum - thinking about his 32 other wives

- experiencing no Christlike love for the poor, the sick and the dying (some disfellowshipped members)

- meeting many very depressed and unhappy women staying in loveless marriages

- pristhoodholders more busy with their callings than the needs of their families

- The Church Spending billions on huge shoppings malls very close to Temple Square and very little on charity

- meeting apologist that defend the chruch even when the Chruch and it

[ERayR]

Wow.

On the whole, I think TB and I must have belonged to entirely different churches.

I thought maybe his ward was a little strange because its pretty different than what I know also.

Edited to add: Maybe its the foyer class. I never attended them very regularly.

[ttribe]

If that is indeed the point of this thread, and if anyone actually cares about people who feel hurt and damaged by the church, I have offered my thoughts (as have others). The corresponding thread at PostMo (mentioned earlier by AZ_RM http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/...ewthread/14431/ ) contains a lot of thoughts by folks who felt deceived. For those who care, and want to learn something, and possibly find a way to make things better, you may want to read that thread as well. If you have some other agenda, then you may not want to read that thread.

Already read it and commented on it here: Post Link

[Heartleap]

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 didn't realize how much I did not know about Mormonism until I had been out a couple years. It is not why I left. I left because of the promptings of the Holy Spirit to pursue Christ. I was born into Mormonism and I loved it and believed it for years, it was not the hidden things that made me leave. I made sure the anti mormons were not going to persuade me when I left the Church.

Heartleap...