For those who felt deceived

[John Williams]

Well, because they pretty much quote or cut and past those sources.

"They" meaning all of us who left?

[consiglieri]

Am I the only Mormon here who felt shock and indignation upon being told some time after my baptism that God was once a man?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[MichaelW]

Umm, were you too rural to get an Ensign subscription?

Count me among the many who felt deceived.

I learned there was another side to Mormon history on my mission. I'm certain that I could have learned some of those things that played a role in my departure from the church before I went on a mission. But it never occurred to me that what I was taught in Sunday School and in Seminary and in the MTC was anything but the complete, unadulterated truth. I had trust in my various instructors (at church, parents, etc...) I suspect most of them believed what they were teaching was true, and that their instruction constituted all relevant facts. I didn't go digging around for "the rest of the story" because I had absolute faith that I was getting the whole story.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Am I the only Mormon here who felt shock and indignation upon being told some time after my baptism that God was once a man?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Had you not read the New Testament, consig?

[StillShell]

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.

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.

This is exactly why we don't attend. It makes it so hard because everyone is upset (friends, family & neighbors) and they all seem to want an explanation. We can't tell them anything without hurting them....or possibly hurting our children by becoming the "apostate family".

[LifeOnaPlate]

Isn't it interesting how beastie is mocked for not reading at 19 and mocked now for reading about Mesoamerica? Weird, that.

I've never mocked beastie for reading anything.

Is too. Care to explain why the comparison works? I'm not seeing it.

The fact that something isn't written down doesn't mean something didn't happen. No matter how important the event. It's pretty basic, John.

[John Williams]

The fact that something isn't written down doesn't mean something didn't happen. No matter how important the event. It's pretty basic, John.

And had I said anything like that, you might have a point. Reading what I actually said ought to be pretty basic, Blair.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, my mistake then.

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.

I should just point out, then, that this statement you made is just straight up false, then.

[John Williams]

Oh, my mistake then.

I should just point out, then, that this statement you made is just straight up false, then.

In what way? Joseph's family members remember Moroni's visit as his first vision, and no one other than Joseph himself mentions his being persecuted for relating the story of the visit of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to be corrected. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

[ERayR]

It seems that rejecting the truth because of disapproval of the backstory is not new. It seems the the Savior himself didn't meet the expectations of the neighbors, all the sanitized histories to the contrary. It seems the neighbors knew him and remembered or thought the human side of him.

ST MATTHEW

CHAPTER 13

55 Is not this the carpenterâ??s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

[John Williams]

It seems that rejecting the truth because of disapproval of the backstory is not new. It seems the the Savior himself didn't meet the expectations of the neighbors, all the sanitized histories to the contrary. It seems the neighbors knew him and remembered or thought the human side of him.

ST MATTHEW

CHAPTER 13

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

If it were just a matter of acknowledging the "human side" of Joseph Smith and early church history, a lot of exmos would still be in the church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In what way? Joseph's family members remember Moroni's visit as his first vision, and no one other than Joseph himself mentions his being persecuted for relating the story of the visit of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to be corrected. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Well, the trouble is that you are utterly wrong. And so confidently, too! Hence my irritation. Forgive my harshness earlier. Still, I advise you dig deeper and discover the sources that contradict your theory.

[John Williams]

Well, the trouble is that you are utterly wrong. And so confidently, too! Hence my irritation. Forgive my harshness earlier. Still, I advise you dig deeper and discover the sources that contradict your theory.

IIRC, Bushman spent considerable time trying to deal with this very issue in RSR. I'd look it up, but my mom borrowed my copy.

Usually, "do your homework" is not an effective response.

[consiglieri]

Had you not read the New Testament, consig?

No, but I had received all the missionary discussions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERayR]

If it were just a matter of acknowledging the "human side" of Joseph Smith and early church history, a lot of exmos would still be in the church.

Can't you see that you are doing the same thing that the neighbors of Jesus did. You have found somthing that "you" don't approve of so because of your disapproval of the messenger you are refusing the message. Because of that attitude even Jesus could not do his mighty works there.

[John Williams]

Can't you see that you are doing the same thing that the neighbors of Jesus did. You have found somthing that "you" don't approve of so because of your disapproval of the messenger you are refusing the message. Because of that attitude even Jesus could not do his mighty works there.

Not so. You assume, apparently, that it's "disapproval of the messenger" that leads me and other exmormons to "refuse the message." I can't speak for others, but that's not the case with me.

[Jeff K.]

IIRC, Bushman spent considerable time trying to deal with this very issue in RSR. I'd look it up, but my mom borrowed my copy.

Usually, "do your homework" is not an effective response.

It is when you don't do it.

[Senator]

Am I the only Mormon here who felt shock and indignation upon being told some time after my baptism that God was once a man?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Though I have felt shock and indignation upon learning certain elements of church history and doctrine; God's anthropomorphism wasn't one of them.

[John Williams]

It is when you don't do it.

[Jeff K.]

Am I the only Mormon here who felt shock and indignation upon being told some time after my baptism that God was once a man?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Probably since most Mormons who converted knew it before they were baptised and it is taught in primary..... Maybe you didn't pay attention.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, but I had received all the missionary discussions. ;)All the Best!--Consiglieri

Consig, what do you think of this door approach:"Hi, we're from the Mormon church and we'd like to tell you how God is a man and we can become gods of planets all over the endless galaxies."

Usually, "do your homework" is not an effective response.

Sometimes it isn't effective. The wiser folks don't need to be reminded all the time, though. But I still love you!

[Deborah]

"They" meaning all of us who left?

using the term "they" in the general sense doesn't mean all; if you want to attribute that to yourself I won't argue. I do believe however, that one's reaction to that history depends on many things including one's own background and baggage and whose interpretation of events is used.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since we have a big audience here I hope to get some feedback on this blog post I made a while ago:

Brigham Young: We read in the Bible, that there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars...These are worlds, different departments, or mansions, in our Father's house. Now, those men or those women who know no more about the power of God and the influences of the Holy Spirit than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom.

Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course.

Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer (Brigham Young, JD 1:312).

Much has been discussed regarding dissemination of knowledge in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I want to share a few thoughts on the topic of education, knowledge, history, and personal responsibility before more fully explaining my view of the recent Bushman seminar.

First, by way of clarification I assert that I believe the current Sunday School, seminary and higher CES instruction could definitely stand some improvement. I also keep in mind that as far as gospel instruction on Sunday is concerned, teaching positions are not filled with professional clergy but with regular members of the Church. The manuals and lesson plans are structured with specific purposes in mind, historical inquiry seemingly secondary to the weightier matters of preaching Christ and Him crucified, and enjoining Saints to have faith and live the gospel.[1]

Perhaps like you I have sat through some mind-numbing lessons when the teacher apologizes for forgetting to go over the lesson during the week or that they were called at the last minute. I have occasionally cringed during what I self-righteously felt was an inadequate sacrament meeting talk or one that expressed what I believe is false doctrine. I have been caught offguard by various surprises in Church history, such as the "Adam-God" theory or "blood atonement" and wondered if these things were discussed in a Seminary class through which I was writing a note to a girl or sleeping with my head on my desk. In the meantime I also recall all of the Simpsons episodes and Utah Jazz games I've watched, the afternoon naps, the summer water fights, all the music I've listened to, enabling me to sing along to every word with favorite bands.

With all that in mind, I don't mean to ridicule those who have less gospel understanding than me, indeed I often feel dwarfed by others; as Will Rogers said: "everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." I do not wish to lay complete blame of ignorance at the feet of Saints who have felt the Church somehow let them down in regards to disseminating information; as Bushman mentioned in his paper, some feel shocked or misled when they discover what they feel is unflattering aspects of Church history; they can lose trust. I wish to emphasize a key gospel principle enjoining all to take personal responsibility now; to remind us that each must be "anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (D&C 58:26-29).[2] For now, I will approach the responsibility to seek this learning, as Brigham explained above, initiative is key. Ironically, most of the people who read this likely don't need to hear it; I'll be preaching to the choir.

For my text I refer to a talk given to BYU students in 1976 by Eliot Butler, former dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.[3] I feel a little like he did; it may seem presumptuous to talk about what it means to be an educated person, but like Butler, I take comfort in the observation that "one is not required to be that which he describes."

What does it mean to be an "educated person"? Butler defines it (not comprehensively, but rightfully, I believe) as one who by his or her own initiative and discipline is consciously, vigorously, and continuously learning. He notes some characteristics that mark any educated person:

Learning is not an aberration, but a continuing, vigorous process.

Learning is the result of self-discipline; not just the result of demands or pressure from others.

Learning does not place responsibility solely on teachers, parents, etc.

Learning includes the freedom of doing more than is expected or required rather than the slave-like position of doing only as much as is required.

Butler briefly describes some processes of gaining knowledge:

*Awareness/Experience

You learn that rain makes your shirt wet. A parent learns the likes and dislikes of a child. This learning is good and crucial, but true education and learning must reach beyond simple observation and memory.

*Naming/Classification

Language is important in formulating and communicating ideas. But if learning is limited to naming it may amount to little more than trivia.

*Higher Tools

Discipline, desire, hard work, etc. are possessed by any educated person should possess.

In short, there must be an inner drive to reach past the boundaries of current knowledge. Butler emphasizes "there should be purpose and a sense of responsibility to the learning." The more one learns, the wider is his or her view that he or she has much more to learn. Increased education actually ought to lead to increased humility rather than smugness or a feeling that "we need no more, for we have enough!"[4]

In closing, Butler emphasizes that by becoming educated (be it at school or on our own) we can become better instruments in the hands of God. We can use our knowledge to appreciate things more, to serve and share with others, and to increase our happiness in life. Or by our ignorance we can become a stumbling block.[5]

So please ask yourself: Do I actively seek more knowledge? How many books have I read in the past year? If I am a college student, have I confined my reading to the assigned texts or do I go beyond them? Have I read something with which I disagree within the past few weeks? Do I read the Sunday School lesson each week before going to Church? When is the last time I read the Book of Mormon? When I have a question during a class do I ask the teacher, or out of fear for looking dumb (or for other reasons, which may be wise) do I keep my hand down? Do I have the initiative to discover an answer if one is not readily available? Am I a passive or an active learner? Am I prideful? Do I view others with contempt because I feel I am smarter than them? What areas of my knowledge can I improve? If I felt to sing the song of the love of continual learning, can I do so now?

This is brief and scattered, but I hope to emphasize that personal responsibility and drive are imperative. Seek and we shall find, knock it and it shall be open to us. Sometimes I view the gospel as a gigantic mansion house with room after room of things to discover. Some people have been in rooms I have not seen yet and I like to ask them what they've discovered there. I try to poke my head in a lot of rooms, and if one looks particularly interesting (or even sometime particularly uninteresting, but I need to stretch my mind) I might walk in and sit down and see what I can discover.

How does knowledge effect salvation? How does the growing access to information, especially through the Internet, affect the gospel cause? What can the Church do better in disseminating knowledge? Has the Church succeeded in the past? What are the roles of each member of the body of Christ (students and the different instructors) regarding education? How did the Bushman seminar compare to previous apologetic efforts? What was different? My intent is to address these issues and more through next week.

Footnotes:

[1]

Indeed it becomes difficult to differentiate between the two (history and living the gospel), given that Latter-day Saints and Christianity in general include historical accounts in religious conviction. Still, for Sunday school purposes I believe that rather than rigorous historical criticism, Church manuals focus more on the application of principles than on various historical opinions. For more on this subject, see David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, "Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter-day Saint History," BYU Studies 31:2 (1991), 1-41 [.pdf]. See also, Dallin H. Oaks, â??Focus and Priorities,â? Ensign, May 2001, 82; â??Good, Better, Best,â? Ensign, Nov 2007, 104â??8.

[2]

Intelligence receives high billing in the Church; seeking knowledge is a fundamental aspect of the gospel; "seek[ing] learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118) is canonized. We are promised that the Spirit can give utterance in the hour of need, especially when one has continually treasured up in the mind the words of life (D&C 84:85). Scripture also connects righteousness with the acquisition of knowledge; charity and virtue can help the doctrine "distil upon [the] soul as the dews from heaven" (D&C 121:45) implying that knowing and becoming are interconnected, and a function of our own works with the grace of Jesus Christ. How much does the knowledge we acquire lend into our faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God? Why would one who gains more knowledge have greater advantage in the life to come (D&C 130:18-19)? What type of knowledge gives this edge?

[3]

Butler, "Everybody Is Ignorant, Only On Different Subjects," BYU Studies 17:3, p. 275-290 [.pdf].

[4]

See 2 Nephi 28:29. The more I have learned about history and archeology the more I am aware of the possible shortcomings of both of those pursuits, as well as the potential fruits they can still yield, for example.

[5]

Muslim philosopher Abu-Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111) wrote: "The harm inflicted on religion by those who defend it in a way not proper to it is greater than [the harm caused by] those who attack it in the proper way to it. As it has been said: 'A rational foe is better than an ignorant friend'" (al-Ghazali, The Incoherance of the Philosophers: A Parallel English-Arabic Text Translated, Introduced, and Annotated by Michael E. Marmura, p. 6).

[Senator]

Probably since most Mormons who converted knew it before they were baptised and it is taught in primary..... Maybe you didn't pay attention.

It's been a while since I've been in primary. How is it taught there?

But inattention is definitely the culprit. My 5 to 12 year old brain was keenly interested in the burning of bugs with a magnifying glass, rather than the ontology of God.

[talisyn]

Am I the only Mormon here who felt shock and indignation upon being told some time after my baptism that God was once a man?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Am I the only one who felt a whole slew of hope when told God was once a man? The idea that God the Eternal Father went through the same trials and tribulations found in the mortal realm and overcame all of them is a huge comfort and relief to my poor little mind.