For those who felt deceived

[ttribe]

They (meaning we) have been implicitly using the tactic that certain information that we discuss here is anti-mormon lies.

Oh yes, I did hear about money digging, secret polygamy, and so forth but was told repeatedly that these were lies (I ask who I had access to).

By the way, all Scientology's secrets have been out for a long time too but somehow the members either don't know or claim they are lies.

Here is what should be and should have been the case:

Oh wait! Here it comes! Dr. Tarski is about to shed forth the infinite wisdom of how a worldwide organization with millions of members should be run (since, of course, he has so much experience doing the same)!

Investigators should have always been told right up front about everything from the BoA "debate" to polygamy to seer stones to the rough outlines of the temple ceremony and it's relation to masonry. In short, anything that could likely later cause someone to say the words "I wish someone had told me that.."

We know what the short list is so let's not pretend it's an unreasonable task.

Perhaps as a door approach?

The missionaries should know at least what I know about church history and critical concerns. They are the messengers and should have been honestly trained with facts.

How about we extend the MTC time to a full year and then they can be in the field for one year? That should work out well.

When they come to my house and talk, it is a spectacle to behold.

Please, Dr. Tarski, don't hurt yourself patting your own back.

A salesman only gives one side--that's expected (buyer beware). But are missionaries salesman? Unfortunately, I think so.

My you are jaded. I learned a thing or two about "compassionate service" and teaching for the welfare of the investigator as a missionary; not achieving numbers for the number's sake.

[MichaelW]

My you are jaded. I learned a thing or two about "compassionate service" and teaching for the welfare of the investigator as a missionary; not achieving numbers for the number's sake.

So you're saying you weren't interested in becoming an AP.

[ttribe]

So you're saying you weren't interested in becoming an AP.

Ummm...get to your point and I might answer that question. I will say this, I'm not sure how one relates to the other.

[Deborah]

Look, keeping in line with church standards is no a big deal. Like the blue pill, belief offers comfort and a set of pat answers about death and personal purpose.

With an eternity of celestial glory waiting, who wouldn't think that living temple worthy would be worth it and a trivial task (look how many do it).

Yeh, but it's still hard and there really have been times I've wished I didn't know what I know (the blue pill).

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,THis is a funny way of disagreeing. What would make you disagree completely? Just curious. I should say not completely but surely disagree?

Because Mortal Man hasn't elucidated his belief, but I have an inkling of what he refers to and likely disagree.

They (meaning we) have been implicitly using the tactic that certain information that we discuss here is anti-mormon lies. Oh yes, I did hear about money digging, secret polygamy, and so forth but was told repeatedly that these were lies (I ask who I had access to).By the way, all Scientology's secrets have been out for a long time too but somehow the members either don't know or claim they are lies.Here is what should be and should have been the case: Investigators should have always been told right up front about everything from the BoA "debate" to polygamy to seer stones to the rough outlines of the temple ceremony and it's relation to masonry. In short, anything that could likely later cause someone to say the words "I wish someone had told me that.." We know what the short list is so let's not pretend it's an unreasonable task.The missionaries should know at least what I know about church history and critical concerns. They are the messengers and should have been honestly trained with facts.When they come to my house and talk, it is a spectacle to behold.A salesman only gives one side--that's expected (buyer beware). But are missionaries salesman? Unfortunately, I think so.

I'm guessing you missed my "Hi folks, my name is Peter" point earlier?

[suem]

I do sincerely appreciate the responses. We all interpret information differently and it's hard to say why some seem to react more negatively to certain pieces of information than others. How our backgrounds or personalities affect us is probably part of the equation. But I also think in the end it is the Spirit which either holds us to the gospel despite our doubts or we, as some have indicated, find a way to re-interpret the spiritual experiences we once had and thereby deny the origin as from God.

Hi Deborah, I am just curious as to what is meant by "react more negatively". I assume this means that a negative response results in someone leaving the church and a positive one results in them staying with the church? I suppose that would be based on one's perspective?

I truly appreciate everything I gained from my experiences within the LDS church. I am equally as grateful for the experiences I have had outside of the LDS church. My initial response and evolving experience has been nothing but wonderful... or "positive".

FWIW... I quit the church because I learned that it is not what it claims to be. It is not true. It is not right. And yet the members (the church) claim otherwise. I was just as fervent a believer as many on this board, possibly moreso I did not wake up one day and say, "Well lookee there... the sun is shining and the birds are singing. Seems like the right day to question everything I have ever believed!" It was more like getting hit by a Mack truck and being left for dead on the side of the road. I am so grateful for that experience! Truly grateful!

[Mortal Man]

Because Mortal Man hasn't elucidated his belief, but I have an inkling of what he refers to and likely disagree.

If your "inkling" is Chris Smith's blog, http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008...-afterlife.html I will say that much of it could be correct. But my belief that God is not temporally located, like we are, originated when I was a teenager. If you believe in prophecy, then you believe that God can at least see the future. If he can see the future then his consciousness can exist there. If his consciousness can exist there then why not his glorified body? There's also piles of scriptures about "one eternal round" and "all things are before me" etc. Also, as you approach the speed of light, or enter a strong gravitational field, your time dilates relative to slower-moving objects or objects in flatter spacetime. For photons, past and future both get squeezed into the present; i.e., the whole history and future of the universe becomes instantaneous. If Moroni can gather up the light around him, then maybe he exists in the photon's frame of reference. (I hope I'm not derailing this thread, but LOAP started it.)

[dblagent007]

I think I found an explanation why certain facts and doctrine are not emphasized by the Church.

This is from an article by Elder Oaks in the February 1987 Ensign. The article is principally about criticism, particularly of church leaders. However, there is a very good discussion of how "truth" should be handled.

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesnâ??t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that â??the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.â? A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as â??contempt for the truth.â? (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: â??To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.â? (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is â??a time to speak,â? and there is also â??a time to keep silence.â? (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to â??take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.â? (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: â??The gist of Paulâ??s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.â? (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, â??If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.â? (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.

Just as the principle of justice must be constrained by the principle of mercy (see <a href="http://"http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/42"" target="_blank">Alma 42), so must the use of truth be disciplined by the principle of love. As Paul instructed the Ephesians, we â??grow up intoâ? Christ by â??speaking the truth in love.â? (See Eph. 4:15.)

</a>In a message titled â??Truthâ??and More,â? Elder Russell M. Nelson contrasted the single-minded surgeon who coldly announces the truth about a terminal illness with the compassionate surgeon who mingles that message with assurances of love and support that help the patient and his family handle the truth. Truth is powerful and absolute in its existence, but its communication should usually be guided by companion principles. â??Otherwise,â? Elder Nelson observed, â??the sword of truth, cutting and sharp as a surgeonâ??s scalpel, might not be governed by righteousness or by mercy, but might be misused carelessly to embarrass, debase, or deceive others. â?¦ Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.â? (Ensign, Jan. 1986, pp. 70â??71.)

One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: â??The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.â? (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: â??Mark them which cause divisions â?¦ and avoid them.â? (<a href="http://"http://scriptures.lds.org/rom/16/17#17"" target="_blank">Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that â??Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,â? and declared that â??If ye are not one ye are not mine.â? (D&C 38:25, 27.)

</a>However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, â??Thou shalt not bear false witnessâ? (<A class=scriptureRef onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/20//16#16')" href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/20/16#16" target=contentWindow>Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is â??a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.â? (Eccl. 3:7.)

This is very interesting (as is the entire talk). First, it seems clear that hard truths should be treated with silence for the reasons Elder Oaks outlined. It seems that, in large measure, this is how the Church is treating some hard truths regarding history and doctrine.

Second, Elder Oaks clearly does not feel that this silence constitutes "lying" or "falsehood." I think most of the apostates on this board feel differently about this.

I think that in principle, Elder Oaks is correct that certain truths are better left unsaid, which is why I don't tell a fat person that he/she is fat. It's rude. However, I'm not sure about the application of this principle to certain aspects of history and doctrine.

For example, a fat person probably has an inkling that he/she is fat without me opening my mouth. I withhold speaking the obvious truth because it serves no purpose other than to hurt the person. In the case of difficult history and/or doctrine, the rationale for silence seems to be the value judgement that the person is better off not knowing since it may destroy faith. I'm just not sure this is a good enough justification. Maintaining faith at all costs is too much.

Either way, I think a good case could be made that more open discussion of difficult aspects of history and doctrine is beneficial to members. This prevents the loss of trust that some feel when they do find out about these things.

The church doesn't seem to agree. The church may have data, or at least anecdotal evidence, that greater exposure to these hard truths is unwise because a great loss of faith will ensue. I don't know, but for whatever reason, the church seems to primarily engage in silence regarding most controversial issues, with an occassional Ensign article written the issue every 10-20 years (if the issue is non-controversial enough - I haven't seen the Ensign article about JS's polyandry yet).

[talisyn]

Religion is not a legal contract.

Religion does not need lawyers to draw up legal documents and disclaimers.

Religion is between you and your God(dess)/Deity(ies)/Higher Power.

If you need your deity to provide a list of disclaimers I suggest you have a very long talk with Him/Her about your real purpose in this world.

[tripipeanut]

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.

This is a sincere and honest answer. I was told many MANY of the secrets while I was growing up in the church, and they did in some way inoculate me against leaving the church. I was given an explanation and a good excuse and a different way of looking at every one of the less-than-perfect side of the history of the church.

I did not leave the church because of the lies and the secrets. I left because the spirit told me to. I am a big believer in the power of prayer. I still fast and pray when I need guidance and strength, or when I feel afraid. I do pray less often than I once did, but I feel alone and afraid less often too.

You see, I fell in love with a woman. A deep deep love, one that made me finally see what all those love songs were talking about. We had a very chaste dating period, because I was waiting for her to convert to the LDS religion. She was open and willing, but was confused about how we, two women would be accepted by our religion. When I prayed about it, I KNEW that this was a good love, that it was beautiful and pure and from God. When I prayed about how it would fit into the LDS religion I got confusion of mind. I had my answer, but it was unsatisfying.

I wrote to church leaders asking for guidance, and seemingly in response the church issued the "proclamation on the family". I was shocked. Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was shocked that the church would willingly eject a faithful and committed pair of people from it's embrace because of the gender that one or the other of them were or weren't. I had a long and difficult struggle with my heart and prayed very often, but the answers I received were not in keeping with what the church leaders taught. When I asked my leaders about this, they responded that the true spirit would not give me answers that would conflict with the church leaders, that I was being deceived.

The one thing that had made staying with the church through all manner of troubled revelations about their past was that I knew that I was able to receive personal revelation for my own guidance, but now the church was telling me that I could not even do that any more. I took the first real leap of faith I've ever taken, I chose to believe the spirit of the lord in my heart and leave the church. I have been rewarded beyond all ability to express for that decision.

I am strong, independent and confident. I feel the love of god in my heart every day, and have absolutely no need for anyone else to reaffirm to me that I do. I am free, happy and content to live my life according to what god would have me do, which is simply to let Jesus be an example, and let myself be as I am or become what i need to become. The honesty I am able to have in my life now is unquestionably the most amazing part of my life.

There is no answer that I must not consider when asking myself a question, there is not possibility that I cannot allow the possibility of being true. I am free to look at all arguments equally and use the considerable mental ability that god gave me to weigh their relevance honestly, as I never felt free to do before. I can even ask myself honestly, "what if I was wrong?". The answer that I can truthfully give to that question is that I wouldn't trade one moment of my heaven-on-earth that I have now for an eternity of the heaven that would restrict the entrance of those people whom I hold most dear. For me, your heaven would not be that, it would be... unpleasant... to put it nicely.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If your "inkling" is Chris Smith's blog, http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008...-afterlife.html I will say that much of it could be correct. But my belief that God is not temporally located, like we are, originated when I was a teenager. If you believe in prophecy, then you believe that God can at least see the future. If he can see the future then his consciousness can exist there. If his consciousness can exist there then why not his glorified body? There's also piles of scriptures about "one eternal round" and "all things are before me" etc. Also, as you approach the speed of light, or enter a strong gravitational field, your time dilates relative to slower-moving objects or objects in flatter spacetime. For photons, past and future both get squeezed into the present; i.e., the whole history and future of the universe becomes instantaneous. If Moroni can gather up the light around him, then maybe he exists in the photon's frame of reference. (I hope I'm not derailing this thread, but LOAP started it.)

As I suspected, we disagree on some fundamental questions (which is fine, but I'm not up to discuss them in depth with you right now given other projects, and this thread is about something else).

And I wasn't thinking of C Smith's blog, no.

[Tarski]

Perhaps as a door approach?

Perhaps before asking for a commitment to be baptized.

[beastie]

Catching up -

QUOTE(beastie @ Mar 17 2009, 04:45 AM) *

I'm still waiting to hear how I, as a nineteen year old investigator in rural Virginia in 1976, was supposed to educate myself about topics I didn't even know existed.

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

Ummm, I wasn't even a member of the church at that point. I'll underline the word you've ignored, and repeat it here for your benefit:

INVESTIGATOR

I had never even heard of the Ensign, and the word never crossed the missionaries' lips.

[consiglieri]

So does going without pants, but what can be said for it?!

Not much for you, maybe . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

Catching up -

Ummm, I wasn't even a member of the church at that point. I'll underline the word you've ignored, and repeat it here for your benefit:

INVESTIGATOR

I had never even heard of the Ensign, and the word never crossed the missionaries' lips.

It must have been difficult living in hillbilly country. No running water, indoor plumbing -- or even telephone service, I'm guessing. Remarkable that you were able to rise above it all.

[Deborah]

Hi Deborah, I am just curious as to what is meant by "react more negatively".

What I means is that some react so negatively it causes them to question everything they once believed in. That's a pretty negative reaction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you're saying you weren't interested in becoming an AP.

Slight derail

At the first of the mission I loved the AP's. At the end of the mission the AP's were my worst enemy.

I disagreed with just about everything they ever said. Of course unless it was gospel related which strangley seemed to not be the topic of much conversation.

[beastie]

It must have been difficult living in hillbilly country. No running water, indoor plumbing -- or even telephone service, I'm guessing.

I find it utterly bizarre that you think it is reasonable to suggest that a 19 year old investigator of the church is supposed to know about the existence of the Ensign magazine, and is then supposed to subscribe to that magazine.... and read it how many years before finding out all this information????

I suspect that since you've resorted to a strange and unwarranted response, you don't really have a response.

Let me state the situation again, for those who are particularly resistant to digesting it:

I was a 19 year old attending a small private college in rural Virginia. I knew nothing about the mormon church at all, other than my sister and her husband had just decided to join it. I don't even remember if I had heard the word "mormon" before in my life, except in passing. I vaguely remembered hearing about someone named Brigham Young who helped settle the west and had lots of wives. That's it.

So I attended church out of curiosity, and was referred to some missionaries. They taught me the scripted lessons and nothing else. I visited a very small branch, where the lessons often literally consisted of reading straight out of the manual.

Just like all missionaries, mine encouraged me to be baptized as soon as possible.

There was no reason for me to suspect that there was some other side to the story they were teaching me. I certainly tried to learn more about mormonism outside of their lessons, however, there was nothing that appeared reliable in our college library on the subject. The two small books contained there were written by EVs who believed mormons were going to hell, so I dismissed any information contained therein.

The missionaries never explained about the church Ensign, or any other church magazine. I never heard the word "Ensign" until I had been a member for months already. Even if I had known about the Ensign, and had immediately subscribed, the chances of me immediately finding out about this information prior to my baptism likely approaches zero.

Scott's ridicule is unwarranted and indicates the lack of a meaningful response.

[suem]

What I mean is that some react so negatively it causes them to question everything they once believed in. That's a pretty negative reaction.

I was just curious about the use of the word "negative" since it really depends on one's perspective.

Personally, I have found that questioning things allows me to find balance in my life. And I do question EVERYTHING. I consider all possible perspectives before committing long-term to anything. That was not an option pre-baptism for me. I was only 8. I didn't know what to question even if I had been given that opportunity. I was told that "the church is true" from the moment I popped out of my mother's womb. That was like being told my name is Sue... it was just what I knew because that was what I was told. Why would my own mother lie to me? It went past my mom... all of my primary teachers, sunday school teachers, young women's teachers, seminary teachers, the fine folks over at the MTC, the mission president, bishops, counselors, etc... No one was intentionally lying, it is just the sheep herding the sheep., doing what they have been told is right, no one stopping to question any of it.

I mean no offense by my question. I was just curious as to how you perceive negativity. Negative/Positive... two sides of the same coin.

[ttribe]

FWIW... I quit the church because I learned that it is not what it claims to be. It is not true. It is not right. And yet the members (the church) claim otherwise.

This is one of the places where dialog on this issue truly breaks down. It is one thing to say you BELIEVE the Church is not what it claims to be, etc. It is something else altogether to state definitively that is is false. To those of us who have studied most (if not all) of the same thing you have and stayed in the Church, we are left to wonder - does she think I'm stupid? A liar? What, exactly?

[Tarski]

This is one of the places where dialog on this issue truly breaks down. It is one thing to say you BELIEVE the Church is not what it claims to be, etc. It is something else altogether to state definitively that is is false. To those of us who have studied most (if not all) of the same thing you have and stayed in the Church, we are left to wonder - does she think I'm stupid? A liar? What, exactly?

Hmm, it is ironic that you want things framed this way given how LDS use the word "KNOW".

[suem]

This is one of the places where dialog on this issue truly breaks down. It is one thing to say you BELIEVE the Church is not what it claims to be, etc. It is something else altogether to state definitively that is is false. To those of us who have studied most (if not all) of the same thing you have and stayed in the Church, we are left to wonder - does she think I'm stupid? A liar? What, exactly?

I would never claim to know what a specific individuals reasons are for their membership in the LDS church. I know some folks who stay because they like the social aspects of it. Others who stay because for family reasons. Others stay because they find everything they need to fulfill themselves. Others stay because they have recieved a personal revelation that what they have experienced is real for them. MOST stay because they do not look at controversial information, and refuse to do so as they feel it would take away from their testimony.

I stand by my statement that "the church" is not true or right. There is only ONE truth, and though the premise of "the church" is stabbing in the direction of the truth, it is missing much and has filled in way too many gaps with stories and characters and other such fillers that are not needed to experience the truth.

So, no, I am not calling you a liar or stupid.

[ttribe]

Hmm, it is ironic that you want things framed this way given how LDS use the word "KNOW".

Hmmm, it is ironic that you've never heard me use that word with respect to such issues around here. Get back to me when you have something of substance to say.

[AmorLibertas]

This is one of the places where dialog on this issue truly breaks down. It is one thing to say you BELIEVE the Church is not what it claims to be, etc. It is something else altogether to state definitively that is is false. To those of us who have studied most (if not all) of the same thing you have and stayed in the Church, we are left to wonder - does she think I'm stupid? A liar? What, exactly?

TTribe, what do you think of those who have left? That they are stupid? Liars? What exactly?

Given what I have learned of you on this board, I don't think you think this of many, perhaps most of those who have left. Perhaps the most charitable thing to believe is that such people who have left are deceived. That is precisely what the most charitable of individuals who have consider themselves to have been while members, and what they consider most members to be who remain. There are some who might suppose that those who stay do so for less than honest reasons, just as there are a great many who believe that those who leave do so for less than honest reasons. I believe a case can be made that such is true for some in each group, but that the vast majority have simply and honestly arrived at differing opinions. If it offends any members of the Church that I happen to believe that they have been deceived, that is something they'll simply have to come to grips with, just as I have had to come to grips with the fact that my family and my Mormon friends believe that I have been deceived.

[ttribe]

TTribe, what do you think of those who have left? That they are stupid? Liars? What exactly?

Nothing of the sort, which is why you'll be hard pressed to find me talking in absolutes about people's experiences and conclusions.

Given what I have learned of you on this board, I don't think you think this of many, perhaps most of those who have left. Perhaps the most charitable thing to believe is that such people who have left are deceived. That is precisely what the most charitable of individuals who have consider themselves to have been while members, and what they consider most members to be who remain. There are some who might suppose that those who stay do so for less than honest reasons, just as there are a great many who believe that those who leave do so for less than honest reasons. I believe a case can be made that such is true for some in each group, but that the vast majority have simply and honestly arrived at differing opinions. If it offends any members of the Church that I happen to believe that they have been deceived, that is something they'll simply have to come to grips with, just as I have had to come to grips with the fact that my family and my Mormon friends believe that I have been deceived.

Honestly, I have no stereotyped conclusion or universal judgment on why people might leave the Church. I am willing (and have stated in this thread) to take people's explanations at face value...where I have a problem is when people talk in absolutes back to me as if their conclusions are the only reasonable ones when I've not treated them this way.

Why do people leave? Near as I can tell the reasons are as numerous as the individuals who leave. Why should I judge the reasons? That's not going to get us anywhere.

You refer to back to the concept of being "deceived"...I haven't reached that conclusion about former members. The fact is I do value agency and if someone exercises that agency and it takes them out of the Church, then so be it. Obviously, the "faithful" member in me is saddened to see someone leave, but that's mostly because I see a lot of good reasons to stay, not because I'm interested in getting into a discussion about who is right and wrong. I am, admittedly, perplexed at the commitment of so many former members to the cause of tearing down the Church though. That one, I just can't relate to.