For those who felt deceived

[Daniel Peterson]

It's clear that a fair number of those who have left the Church for intellectual reasons -- a relatively small but not insignificant group -- genuinely feel that the Church deceived them about its history, suppressed its history, or whatever.

This is a serious problem, and well worth addressing in some fashion.

And yet, and yet . . . I don't believe that the claim is true at all.

That doesn't make the problem go away, but it casts a very different light on the true nature of the problem. Which is important when thinking about how to address it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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?

Amen to that. If Andrew is so into truth and getting the story straight, how does he reconcile that with the way he has been portrayed by various news outlets?

[Jeff K.]

The way people feel about the church isn't a serious problem. The Church is for all to accept or reject for various reasons. How you feel is a perception that does not reflect reality and certainly not objective reality. Intellectually there is no clear reason to believe God since it cannot be proven (though that enters into a whole new area of implication).

[beastie]

Just one, and then I will give my over-active imagination some rest; it's giving me a splitting headache.

Do you feel that you have been largely misunderstood by members, who can't relate to your intellectual reasons for leaving the church?

I havenâ??t kept in close enough touch with enough real-life mormons to be able to fairly answer this question, but based on the few LDS I have talked to seriously about this, in real life, I would say that most of them seem to accept that I left for intellectual reasons. No one that knows me well has ever insinuated that I left for other reasons, like to sin, or that I never had a testimony, or that I was proud, or had hurt feelings. People who knew me understood what a slow â?? and very painful â?? process my loss of faith was, and appreciated that it was based on discovering things about church history I had not known previously, especially as a convert. I think they respected and liked me too much to be willing to minimize the process to something silly like hurt feelings or â??wanting to sinâ?. (btw, it took me two years after leaving the church to taste any alcohol outside communion at the church I was attending) Now, maybe they said things like that behind my back, I donâ??t know, but they certainly didnâ??t say such things to my face. Even my bishop seemed to understand my issues, although obviously he thought the issues could be worked out. There were largely two types of reactions to my issues â?? one from people who were unaware of these issues, and they just didnâ??t want to believe any of it was true (like JSâ?? polyandry), and those who were aware of the issues, appreciated that they were troubling, but still thought I could resolve them. Well, now that I say this, I do remember one LDS man who reacted to me in a particularly obnoxious way, but he was pretty much obnoxious with everyone anyhow.

People act differently on the internet, obviously, and thatâ??s the only place where I can recall being told I left to sin, or due to pride, or other silliness. I donâ??t know if thatâ??s because people feel free to say their true feelings on the internet, whereas they would censor their statements in real life, or because we donâ??t â??seeâ? each other, or because the internet just brings out the worst in people.

Of course, keep in mind that I live in a part of the country where there are hardly any LDS. I suspect I might meet more judgment if I lived in a part of the country with lots of LDS.

[Greg Smith]

Of course, keep in mind that I live in a part of the country where there are hardly any LDS. I suspect I might meet more judgment if I lived in a part of the country with lots of LDS.

Or, at the very least, when one meets MORE people of any group--as would happen in a more heavily-LDS area--one is more likely to meet more obnoxious people simply by statistical necessity. :-)

The obnoxious, like the poor, "ye always have with you." (I worry one of the obnoxious might be closer to me than I suspect.... :->)

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Greg Smith's superb essay in the latest FARMS Review is directly relevant to one of the topics regarding which alienated former believers claim they were misled and on which they say that they were somehow prevented from reading:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=721

[Cold Steel]

When one balances the great wealth of what is known against the doubt and skepticism weighed against it, one also sees the great fulfillment of prophecy. It was only too easy for Smith and his followers to lay out comprehensive prophecies, drawing from both the New Testament and the Old, and then fulfill them. The only problem, of course, is that it's far easier said than done.

What can be said against the Mormons that has not already been said of ancient Christianity by its harshest critics? The church of Joseph Smith was a small, secretive group that moved steadily and progressively through its theology, speaking much of priesthood and the keys of the kingdom, of the mysteries, healing the sick, raising the dead and teaching consistently and forcefully the things of God just as the early Christians did. It's one thing to lay claim to the Kingdom of God prophecy in Daniel; it's another thing to actually be able to fulfill it. The word of God showed the United States to be on the way to becoming a nation above all others in knowledge, wealth and prosperity, generations before it actually happened. It spoke confidently of temples dotting the Earth at a time the saints could barely raise one. Section 133 of the Doctrine & Covenants outlines the future of the church with boldness that today is consistent with its stated purpose and goals, but at the time was outrageous optimism. "And in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools of living water; and the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land. And [the lost tribes] shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim, my servants. And the boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence. And there shall they fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion, by the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim." At the time this was given, the saints were years away from the Rocky Mountains and their destiny very much in question.

Those who think the church will die at the hands of the Internet fail to see the prophecies being fulfilled before their eyes. Who now can look at our society, and those in other nations, and not see the fulfillment? Those who read and study the Book of Mormon can see our own society mirrored in that of the fallen Nephites. Our leaders have warned nations that unless they repented and accepted the gospel that their nations would collapse, and they warned the Gentiles of the U.S. that they would be afflicted with social and moral decay, which we're now seeing in rich abundance.

It's incredible how like the ancients we are, or they like us in our flaws. But it's also incredible how much we are like the ancient Christians in carrying forth the message. "Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews. And behold, and lo, this shall be their cry, and the voice of the Lord unto all people: Go ye forth unto the land of Zion, that the borders of my people may be enlarged, and that her stakes may be strengthened, and that Zion may go forth unto the regions round about." (133:8-9)

"Hearken and hear, O ye inhabitants of the earth. Listen, ye elders of my church together, and hear the voice of the Lord; for he calleth upon all men, and he commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (16)

As much as this sounds like the modern church, this prophecy was given in 1831. How did Joseph Smith know? How could he have predicted it? Did he know that one day the saints would be living in the "boundaries of the everlasting hills"?

"And now, verily saith the Lord, that these things might be known among you, O inhabitants of the earth, I have sent forth mine angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel, who hath appeared unto some and hath committed it unto man, who shall appear unto many that dwell on the earth. And this gospel shall be preached unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. And the servants of God shall go forth, saying with a loud voice: Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of watersâ??calling upon the name of the Lord day and night, saying: O that thou wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. And it shall be answered upon their heads; for the presence of the Lord shall be as the melting fire that burneth, and as the fire which causeth the waters to boil." (36-41)

Who else can lay claim to the fulfillment of Daniel 2's "Kingdom of God" prophecy? Or Revelation 14's fulfillment of the angel that would go forth unto all nations. Or Isaiah 29's prophecy of the "marvelous work and a wonder"? Or Malachi's prophecy concerning Elijah? Or Isaiah's prophecy about the mountain of the Lord's House being established in the tops of the mountains? I have a feeling that, standing before the Lord in the day of judgment, "DNA evidence" of the Nephites is going to sound foolish. But it's only to be expected...free agency being what it is.

[beastie]

Dear Pahoran, you are nothing if not consistent in your approach. Although I run the risk of being accused of derailing the thread by replying to you, I will still do so.

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?

I am telling you that I offered the two alternatives that could most reasonably be defended.

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.

Well, my goodness, what an extraordinarily high bar you set, which is odd, since you concede that JS did have marital relations with some of his wives, which would seem to indicate you believe he had the right to have such relations with his wives. Why would you go to such extremes to deny the possibility that Sylvia Sessions believed JS fathered Josephine?

Hereâ??s the background, for those who are unaware:

There was a brief period in which the church leaders felt it in the churchâ??s interest to prove that Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy. Most of this was due to attempting to persuade JSâ?? children of this fact, but it was also connected later to the Temple Lot case, in which the rights to land once purchased for the building of a temple were contested in court between the RLDS and another offshoot sect called the Granville Hedrickâ??s Church of Christ. The Granville group thought that they could undermine the RLDSâ?? claims to this land if they could prove JS practiced polygamy. The LDS church also became involved behind the scenes when it loaned money to the Granville group, with the land as security. So the argument seemed to center on which church was Josephâ??s rightful â??heirâ?, so to speak, and this is why polygamy became an important part of it. So depositions were taken that also revealed details about JSâ?? polygamy. (I hope I have the details correct on that, itâ??s late and Iâ??m trying to finish this in a hurry)

The individuals who were obtaining this information were faithful members, like Andrew Jenson, church historian, who is the person who took Josephineâ??s statement. Iâ??ve never read anything in that statement, or elsewhere, that would indicate Sylvia was out of her mind, making all sorts of crazy statements.

In addition to this affidavit, Joseph Smith III continued to interview people in his hopes of proving that his father did not practice polygamy. Instead, he found contrary evidence. He interviewed Stake President Angus Cannon, who stated that he was aware of Joseph Smith fathering a child through plural marriage, whose grandmother was Patty Sessions.

Sylvia Sessions had numerous children, some of whom died at birth. That information can be read here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/65...viasessions.htm

The statements about Josephineâ??s parentage were all made by faithful members, none of whom seemed to consider that Sylvia was either crazy or lying.

The fact that Sylvia had children with a non-member whom she later left is even stronger reason to believe she would not have singled out Josephine alone as being JSâ?? daughter, if all she meant was the sealing process. All of her children would belong to JS in the next life.

Now, I have no doubt that Pahoran will simply reply that since I canâ??t produce the documents he demanded, his case is made, and my case is specious. Some people are so determined to deny the possibility that JS had marital relations with his wife, Sylvia, that they would prefer to insinuate she was crazy or lying, or that, despite the fact that the statements were expressly being sought to prove Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, and the statement ignored her other children, that it referred to a sealing only. I trust that others may see the matter differently.

Greg:

Or, at the very least, when one meets MORE people of any group--as would happen in a more heavily-LDS area--one is more likely to meet more obnoxious people simply by statistical necessity. :-)

The obnoxious, like the poor, "ye always have with you." (I worry one of the obnoxious might be closer to me than I suspect.... :->)

Yes, this is what I was trying to insinuate, although it may also be the case that a group in the majority in an area may feel more comfortable expressing judgments against others.

[Deborah]

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

I wasn't going to respond to TB because his statements were so utterly unrealistic and outrageous, but I wonder what really happened to make him so bitter.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Got it. This thread isn't about you; it's about 'those who felt deceived,' which, despite the fact that you're 'one who felt deceived,' doesn't include you...

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)....

So you feel 100% confident that the phrase 'high priest in good standing in the Mormon Church' clearly and unmistakably conjures up an accurate depiction of yourself: a man who hasn't been to church in years, who actively participates in ex-Mormon internet forums (and therefore most likely no longer identifies himself as a member of the Church), and who has co-created a web site encouraging others to resign their Church membership? You must, right, since this phrase was not only the description of yourself which you supplied to various news agencies last year but which you also used--in both written and verbal forms--in your

? Alternatively, if you don't feel that this phrase creates a 100% accurate depiction of yourself, why did you repeatedly use it?

...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.

We all understand, of course, that the media like to edit and sensationalise, but it does then seem a pit peculiar that, after describing yourself as a 'high priest in good standing in the Mormon Church' on your YouTube videos, you never once mention these salient points which you 'went out of [your] way' to reveal to the news media. Did you not have time in your almost-thirteen-minute rant against the Church to mention the fact that--just in case someone managed to get the wrong impression--what you meant when you claimed you were a high priest in the Church in good standing was 'that no sanctions of any kind were in force against' you despite your complete inactivity in, estrangement from, and obvious antipathy toward the Church?

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....

I'm assuming it's your concern for these 'lost sheep' which led you to put a link on your website explaining how to resign from the Church and encouraging those doing so to register their personal details with you. It must have been this same concern which led you, shortly after Prop 8 passed, to post on an ex-Mormon forum, exulting in all the resignations you'd gotten word of so far and wondering aloud if there should be some concerted effort, since the time was right, to contact all less-actives and invite them to resign.

...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.

Thank you, Andrew, for helping all of us gain some understanding. It's really helpful, actually, to see someone who repeats a rather-less-than-complete description of himself in public accuse the Church of 'downplaying' certain historical details. It is similarly helpful to see someone who claims that the Church has 'armies and armies' of workers whose 'sole job' was to keep you from having any communication with the General Authorties and that the 'middle managers' (bishops? stake presidents?) in the Church all live in 'paranoid fear' of the Strengthening Members Committee turn around and accuse the Church of making claims it cannot substantiate.

I'm sorry you're disappointed by your experience here; I suspect many of us are not.

[talisyn]

That must be why they raised the bar and made it more difficult for missionaries to go out. Generally the instruction presented, regardless of the way a bitter ex-Mormon tries to slant it, is that the way you act is generally the way you become. And this often enough is true. Though I believe it should be internally driven, we know that God doesn't always deal strictly with internally driven criteria.

Basically, be the change you wish to see.

[Tabitha]

And why not they were married. So many have such a hatred for polygamy that it seems to throw you all int fits and shakes to think that some willingly and happily lived that principle in all its aspects. Through good and bad and the full range of human emotions men and women entered into the polygamous marriages and picked their way through the minefield of mistakes and most learned how to live harmoniously and happily in these relationships. Then you and those like you sit back 100 years later with a 21st century outlook on things, knowing nothing but your own jelious natures, and find fault with them. With all your self rightious arrogance and all you think you know you still know nothing. Those people tamed a land left a lasting legacy and you spend your time trying to destroy it. What is your leagacy.

Show me one example of a happy polygamous marriage, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

[Daniel Peterson]

Show me one example of a happy polygamous marriage, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Heber J. Grant's polygamous family seems to have been happy.

(Don't, by the way, hold plural marriage relationships to such a high standard that no monogamous marriage would be able to survive your scrutiny if held to that same standard. Be fair.)

[MatthewG]

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

I guess it's a generational thing, like your Dallas/JR comment, that went right over my head.

[Kyle]

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?

It is not the old journals and letters that made me leave the church. I think the only thing the history of the church and the journals and letters did for me was act as a catalyst. As I sat in seminary class or preisthood and asked about the JoD, or why there were so many different accounts of the first vision, the teachers chastized me and said I was not old enough to understand, or I should not ask questions like that. Of course, this kind of reaction made me delve deeper into studying church history, which led me to study theology, then philosophy, and then I left the church. I am not saying that I wouldn't have left the church if my teachers acted differently, but because they were not willing to be honest with me, I had to find out the answers by myself.

[Daniel Peterson]

why there were so many different accounts of the first vision

The varying accounts of the First Vision represent little or no problem. I use them in Gospel Doctrine classes.

Incidentally, my doctoral dissertation was on a topic in Neoplatonic philosophical theology. I'm still very much a believer. So are others with comparable backgrounds. Just for the record.

http://www.smpt.org/

We're having our annual meeting in Claremont, California, in May.

[Tabitha]

I think one reason why people leave when they learn about church history is that the church promotes a very "you're either with us or against us" culture. People feel that they have to constantly hide their feelings- live in the shadows like some kind of covert operative. And then there are the lessons about the evils of apostacy, and the temple recommend interviews, and the "Can I teach about this to children when I don't believe it" question. People say they feel they need to have integrity with themselves- that they can't live a lie. In addition, there is constant pressure to do missionary work and other things that are very awkward for the testimony challenged. The church, by its very nature and structure, is just very hard to stick with if you believe differently. People often leave because they say they want to have integrity with themselves, when I really think it is just because it is so uncomfortable.

It's an issue I have struggled with personally for some time, until I saw an episode of House a few weeks ago.

In this episode a man has some kind of ailment that causes him to always say exactly what he is thinking. He says all kinds of obnoxious things- telling women his sexual desires for them, telling a loved one he thinks their job is stupid, telling the doctor that his nose is too big, etc. It dawned on me that there really is nothing wrong with keeping your feelings to yourself. It doesn't mean you are not living with integrity, it means you are being courteous to the people around you.

If I were to tell my mother my true feelings about the church, all it accomplishes is to hurt her and destroy the spiritual communication we are able to enjoy now. It is my responsibility to meet people where they are at. For LDS people, the concept of the First Vision and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon are absolutely sacred. I should not expect them to be understanding that I've changed my mind- to them it means possibly losing my exaltation. And as long as the beliefs are good ones, that lead people to do good things- who am I to challenge them? Therefore, if I want to associate with them (which I do), I respect their beliefs by withholding my own. And there is nothing lacking in my integrity when I do that.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I guess I'm not really answering the question of this thread- which centers more around why some people choose to believe after learning the history and others don't. I don't think anyone can answer that, except that we are all different with different spiritual experiences, backgrounds, personalities, etc. I guess for me- the more I learned, the more curious I became- nothing made sense to me until I drew a different conclusion.

[Kyle]

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.

First off, I want to say is the whole reaosn I am here is to learn from my elders. I am not brash enough to say that I know everything, far from it. I study and learn because I know that I don't know that much(Socrates) The answers of Fair and Farms was one of the very first sites I looked at, years ago. I have found arguments and counterarguments for both sides. In my studies it's been like a ping-pong match. The most critical book that I have read that discusses the fundamental problems with Christianity is: Atheism The Case Against God by George Smith. After reading it, the answers on FAIR are not satisfactory. You can get it at Prometheus Books. We can discuss through messages instead of cluttering up this thread.

Oh, and JLFuller, are you going to respond to post 238?

[Daniel Peterson]

The most critical book that I have read that discusses the fundamental problems with Christianity is: Atheism The Case Against God by George Smith. After reading it, the answers on FAIR are not satisfactory. You can get it at Prometheus Books. We can discuss through messages instead of cluttering up this thread.

What have you read on the philosophical case for theism?

Alvin Plantinga, perhaps? Richard Swinburne? Nicholas Wolterstorff? William Lane Craig?

[Kyle]

The varying accounts of the First Vision represent little or no problem. I use them in Gospel Doctrine classes.

Incidentally, my doctoral dissertation was on a topic in Neoplatonic philosophical theology. I'm still very much a believer. So are others with comparable backgrounds. Just for the record.

http://www.smpt.org/

We're having our annual meeting in Claremont, California, in May.

Sure, but to a 14 year old boy it was uncomfortable to the point it made me look outside the church for understanding.

But I am interested in the publications of the website you posted. Any chance I can get my hands on them?

[John Williams]

The varying accounts of the First Vision represent little or no problem. I use them in Gospel Doctrine classes.

Incidentally, my doctoral dissertation was on a topic in Neoplatonic philosophical theology. I'm still very much a believer. So are others with comparable backgrounds. Just for the record.

http://www.smpt.org/

We're having our annual meeting in Claremont, California, in May.

What I find most interesting about the First Vision is that no one in his family seems to recall hearing of it, and the persecution JS noted in his history seems not to have been remembered, either.

[Kyle]

What have you read on the philosophical case for theism?

Alvin Plantinga, perhaps? Richard Swinburne? Nicholas Wolterstorff? William Lane Craig?

I've dabbled in Thomas Aquinas and F.C Copleston. But I studied the works of Joseph Smith for most of my life. I did read God, Freedom, and evil about a year ago.

What about you?

What have you read on the philosophical case for athiesm?

[Jeff K.]

What I find most interesting about the First Vision is that no one in his family seems to recall hearing of it, and the persecution JS noted in his history seems not to have been remembered, either.

Bzzzz not accurate and out of context.

[Daniel Peterson]

What I find most interesting about the First Vision is that no one in his family seems to recall hearing of it, and the persecution JS noted in his history seems not to have been remembered, either.

Oh, I think that's quite simplistic.

Have you read Opening the Heavens, or Backman's book on the First Vision?

What about you?

What have you read on the philosophical case for athiesm?

Gosh.

Xenophanes, Lucretius, Dennett, Camus, Marx, Nietzsche, Flew, Russell, Hitchens, L

[a5m5a5d]

This sounds vaguely familiar.

ha ha ... good one