For those who felt deceived

[m29173]

God does not exist in time the same way we do; hence, speaking of his past makes no sense.

...and you know that how ?....

[ttribe]

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.

How do you know that "MOST stay because they do not look at controversial information...."? Do you have empirical evidence to support this statement, or is it simply your opinion?

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.

I don't care if that's your opinion, you're entitiled to it, but you have set it up in absolute terms such that anyone who disagrees with you is, buy definition, wrong. Sorry. We just don't have much more to say to each other if you refuse to come off your high horse.

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

Hmmm...I remain unconvinced.

[Sparrowhawk]

I havenâ??t got time to read this whole thread, particularly now that I have reached the ever forthcoming accusations of lost testimony via sin and assertions of â??knowledgeâ? rather than belief and faith and rational evaluation (assertions of knowledge seem equally invalid from either side).

For me the real problem is the all or nothing dichotomous thinking. I knew most of what I know now about church history when I was a faithful believing member. The problem I faced was the encouragement to believe everything or nothing. There is little room in the LDS church for a liberal interpretation of its history and theology. When I came to the rational decision, based on a preponderance of evidence that there were no nephites or lamanites, then I had the dilemma of how to stay in the LDS church with ideas such as that (the same with every other tricky issue discussed here). I would have gladly stayed, and made meaning out of what was left. Many Jews do the same with their religion. It is deeply meaningful to them, but they donâ??t necessarily even believe in divine authorship of the bible.

So, the problem for me is that in order to remain in full fellowship with the LDS church, one is pressured to come to certain conclusions, some of which are not clearly supported by the facts. This makes it very difficult for many honest people to participate in any meaningful way. Obviously this is not a problem if you come to the â??rightâ? conclusions (the ones supported by the institution â?? which are not necessarily always the most likely). Making this dynamic in the church even worse is that the idea that the only reason a person would come to the wrong conclusions is a secret sin, or lack of valiance. This is just adding insult to injury. Lessons on never questioning the living authorities or the risks of apostasy are a big part of the problem. The leaders of the church are human and should be questioned. There is nothing different here than there is anywhere elseâ?¦ Where else in your life would you allow a human so much control with so little questioning? Unquestioning acceptance of a human as the final word on godâ??s will is not a good idea. It never has been. Second only to this in silliness is the idea that everyone will get the same answer when the ask god about their leaders. That just doesnâ??t happen. Everyone gets their own answer and they just donâ??t always match up.

This is the reason so many leave the church. There is only one acceptable answer in certain areas according to the LDS institution (even when there are many conclusions a rational person could reach). So those of us who have come to a conclusion different from what we are pressured to come to feel ostracized judged, and generally have no chance to do the work we feel god has assigned to us because if we are open and honest about our conclusions, we generally donâ??t get called to anything beyond activities chairperson and become the ward kook. In addition, because we are willing to question, we also begin to notice how people are being hurt by the institution, and sadly, the church has no process for dealing with most of those instances outside of denying them.

I believe the church will stop losing people over this when they stop insisting there is only one right answer.

[LifeOnaPlate]

krose, Tarski, Mormon Questioner, Mortal Man, MichaelW and others:

I posted a semi-lengthy response earlier.

Like many of the complex issues people have raised in this thread (plural marriage, for example), my explanation took time to write and was a little long, it would take some time to read.

Still, I hoped to see who would actually take the opportunity to avail themselves of information that is placed right in front of their faces and give me some feedback. That was a little after 9am this morning. People often don't want to put forth the effort when things are right in front of their faces.

Interesting food for thought.

[Free Agent]

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.

Beastie

Just wanted to jump in here and say my experience mirrors yours quite a bit. I joined the Church at 19, believed strongly, raised my kids in the Gospel, and now my husband, myself and kids no longer believe due to historical issues. My MAIN REASON for jumping in here was the condescension directed at you from Scott Lloyd, and just to let him know I wasn't raised in hillbilly country and had no clue what the Ensign was, nor the New Era, until after I was baptized.

Free Agent

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is there an echo in here?

[m29173]

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?

.....how about gullible ?

it never ceases to amaze me how people who study the same thing come to completely different conclusions.......

what that tells me is that religion - in this case - is flawed beyond comprehension and that everyone can twist it any way they feel fit. there is nothing close to being absolute truth in it, which one would expect from the "creator" of the universe, in which everything is in absolute harmony. no hair splitting, ifs and buts.

[AmorLibertas]

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

I think this may be a partial explanation. I believe a more complete explanation, however, is that the Church (as an institution) is simply embarrassed by some of the less than flattering aspects of its history, it views some of its early doctrines and practices as being counterproductive to conversion of new members and retention of existing members, and thus prefers to avoid discussing such doctrines and practices as much as possible, even discouraging the discussion of such things in private study groups out of concern that doing so would lead to greater numbers of apostasy.

The notion that "hard truths" should not be talked about or discussed is unfortunate in some respects. When the Church discourages talking about these things, it creates the perception in the mind of many who question that the Church is attempting to hide things from its members in an effort to protect itself rather than in an effort to protect the member who is struggling with their belief or faith. Meeting such struggles with silence or worse yet, condemnation has a tendency to cause feelings of isolation, inferiority, and even despair. If the only answers one can get wind up coming from "forbidden sources", this only leads further credence to the notion that the Church is hiding things from its members to protect itself.

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.

The notion that silence constitutes lying, falsehood, or deception is not a new or novel notion. It is the reason why when one is sworn in to testify in a court of law, one is sworn to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Furthermore, such silence when it comes to confessing sins one has committed is considered a lie or sin of omission.

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.

Not only is it too much, but the approach often backfires. A better approach for the Church to take would be full disclosure in a progressive and orderly fashion. The scripture, after all, doesn't say, "only milk", it says, "milk before meat". Furthermore, it doesn't say, "tell them there's only milk", or "don't eat meat sacrificed to idols, ever", it says, "don't act in a way as to cause a weaker brother to stumble or err."

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.

Exactly.

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).

[ttribe]

.....how about gullible ?

it never ceases to amaze me how people who study the same thing come to completely different conclusions.......

what that tells me is that religion - in this case - is flawed beyond comprehension and that everyone can twist it any way they feel fit. there is nothing close to being absolute truth in it, which one would expect from the "creator" of the universe, in which everything is in absolute harmony. no hair splitting, ifs and buts.

Ahhh, so I am gullible because I believe in God and the Church? And yet, there is so much in my life which, in the absence of knowledge about my religious beliefs, might convince you otherwise. Perhaps, you too, have engaged in a broad-brush stereotype based on your personal conclusions...not to mention an apparent penchant for speaking under the influence of unfettered condescension.

[Senator]

.....how about gullible ?

it never ceases to amaze me how people who study the same thing come to completely different conclusions.......

If so, then I would have to conclude that your pool is rather shallow.

[beastie]

Just wanted to jump in here and say my experience mirrors yours quite a bit. I joined the Church at 19, believed strongly, raised my kids in the Gospel, and now my husband, myself and kids no longer believe due to historical issues. My MAIN REASON for jumping in here was the condescension directed at you from Scott Lloyd, and just to let him know I wasn't raised in hillbilly country and had no clue what the Ensign was, nor the New Era, until after I was baptized.

Thank you, Free Agent.

I have a suspicion that most readers realize Scott's condescension was totally unwarranted, and simply betrayed his lack of a more meaningful response. The idea that an investigator is supposed to know about the Ensign, subscribe, and somehow manage to get the right editions that deal with these issues, all prior to baptism, is patently absurd.

[talisyn]

Thank you, Free Agent.

I have a suspicion that most readers realize Scott's condescension was totally unwarranted, and simply betrayed his lack of a more meaningful response. The idea that an investigator is supposed to know about the Ensign, subscribe, and somehow manage to get the right editions that deal with these issues, all prior to baptism, is patently absurd.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Scott's attitude is directed more to those who did not seek available information and study these things out in their mind before taking the leap into the LDS church. He's much nicer than I am. All I hear is wah wah wah.

[beastie]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Scott's attitude is directed more to those who did not seek available information and study these things out in their mind before taking the leap into the LDS church. He's much nicer than I am. All I hear is wah wah wah.

I will correct you because you're wrong. Scott's comments were directed at me, and my statement about not having access to information about "these issues" as an investigator.

When I pointed out it is unreasonable to expect an investigator to know about, and subscribe to, the Ensign to read about these issues - issues which I did not even know existed - he responded with the "hillbilly" comment.

[AmorLibertas]

krose, Tarski, Mormon Questioner, Mortal Man, MichaelW and others:

Still, I hoped to see who would actually take the opportunity to avail themselves of information that is placed right in front of their faces and give me some feedback. That was a little after 9am this morning. People often don't want to put forth the effort when things are right in front of their faces.

While I agree that many individuals fail to avail themselves of information placed right in front of them, I was faced with a different problem. The answers I received from well-meaning leaders, some of which one might think really ought to have known better given their positions in CES, were simply inadequate, at times, contrary to the facts, and at other times simply fallacious. It was my inability to get reasonable, rational, and accurate answers from generally approved sources, such as books written by General Authorities and past presidents of the Church as well as scholars like Skousen, Nibley, Sorenson, et. al., that led me to consider evaluating the explanations offered by the critics of the Church. My initiative to learn didn't fail me, it was the lack of satisfactory answers to my questions which ultimately ended with, either platitudes like, "just pray about it some more" or "don't worry about it, it's not pertinent to your salvation", or explanations like, "those are just lies made up by anti's and apostates" or "That was based on something that Mark Hoffman forged", etc. which I knew from looking at source documents was simply not the case.

Yes, personal initiative is vital in becoming educated on any subject; but having accurate and available source material and reasonable and plausible answers that make at least as much sense as the alternative explanations being offered is equally important. Unfortunately, I found the latter to be lacking in my opinion, hence, my loss of belief/faith.

[Deborah]

Personally, I have found that questioning things allows me to find balance in my life.

Are you assuming the rest of us don't question things. It's not the questions that are at issue, but the conclusions and responses.

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.

No offense intended but this is ridiculous. If you really believe all those people are blind little sheep you would be very wrong. Most of these people have been through trials of faith. Just because they don't go around telling everyone about it doesn't mean they haven't been through it. I've talked to many people who seem to be just happy followers and they can tell some amazing stories about their struggles and the answers they've gotten.

[talisyn]

I will correct you because you're wrong. Scott's comments were directed at me, and my statement about not having access to information about "these issues" as an investigator.

When I pointed out it is unreasonable to expect an investigator to know about, and subscribe to, the Ensign to read about these issues - issues which I did not even know existed - he responded with the "hillbilly" comment.

I think the missionaries really should take along a few copies of the Ensign or New Era or Friend along with them when they meet with investigators. There's a lot of good stuff in those magazines

However, almost any library in the country will have something about Mormons, pro or con. I went to high school in an area that had maybe 1% LDS population and even the libraries there had something. This was way before the internet. This was before personal computers. It was barely past Atari.

Remember the warm fuzzy feelings you get when talking to the missionaries? Remember the admonishment to nurture and grow your testimony?

1Nephi 8

24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

How terrible a thing it is, to have felt the peace and love of the gospel and not have the knowledge or will to keep that feeling. I am sorry for the loss of those who were once brothers and sisters in the church, and I am sorry for their loss as well.

[beastie]

I think it hard to deny that Mormons have a history of hiding certain teachings and practices from outsiders.

My experience has been that the overriding reason for doing so is because we view everybody who is not a Mormon as a potential member, and instead of simply stating what we believe and do, we are constantly spinning things in order to leave the impression best calculated to baptize.

How many times have Mormons on this very board been asked a question by a non-member only to mentally filter the response and instead of just being frank with them and speaking like they would with another Mormon, excise controversial material and give them a response that would pass Primary muster?

I mean, it's not like we don't have LDS professors advocating we "answer the question that should have been asked."

Yes, thank you!!

The question is why did you join the church? Was it because the teachings had the ring of truth? If this is the case what did it matter about the other things? So later on you hear things that disturb you. And I guess this is where I have difficulty because I can't see why you would throw out the truths you learned because of what you've heard or read without first searching out the other side of the story from reliable sources. It is indeed throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

First, you have drawn some hasty conclusions, such as I â??threw out the truths I learned without first searching the other side of the story from reliable sources.â? I spent years trying to figure all this out, and during that time, wasnâ??t relying on unreliable sources (by which I guess you mean anti-mormon sources).

Aside from that, I think the real issue is a serious difference of opinion on whether or how the â??other thingsâ? directly impact the basic truth claims of the LDS church. Just one example is the character of Joseph Smith. There are believers who think that the character of Joseph Smith is irrelevant in regards to the question of whether or not he was a true prophet of God. I disagree. I think that character matters, because it defies reason for an omnipotent being to choose someone with serious character flaws to be his representative on earth. For heavenâ??s sake, even businesses run by mere mortals know better. The messenger matters, and the messenger matters even more when the message is primarily moral. I think perhaps differences like this explain why some of us feel that important things were hidden from us, by the sheer fact of their omission, and others feel that the information wasnâ??t important enough to include. I also suspect that church leaders also understand character matters, which is why they find time to teach stories about JSâ?? nobility (see: his leg operation as a youth) while not finding time to teach stories about how he practiced polygamy (see: constant conflicts with Emma over the issue, public denials while practicing it, and marrying other menâ??s wives).

In the past, in similar conversations, believers have stated that these issues are not addressed because they are not relevant to the churchâ??s mission. I think they are relevant. Someone else made the decision that I didnâ??t need to know these things in order to fairly evaluate the truth of the churchâ??s claims. I think I did need to know these things â?? and polygamy is just one, obvious, example. So, in my view, things like how JS practiced polygamy, how scriptures have been altered without explanation or comment, the vagueness of early accounts of the First Vision arenâ??t the bathwater â?? theyâ??re the baby. That baby is the reliability of those who claim to have been the vehicles to restore the â??one true churchâ?.

[Deborah]

The notion that silence constitutes lying, falsehood, or deception is not a new or novel notion. It is the reason why when one is sworn in to testify in a court of law, one is sworn to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I've been involved in several depositions for my work and have always been instructed to answer the question as succinctly as possible, don't elaborate and don't tell more than is asked. Telling the truth and nothing but the truth doesn't mean you have to tell every detail of something, particularly those details that aren't pertinent to the discussion. It's ridiculous to say that silence constitues falsehood or deception. Christ himself was silent before Herod. Was he therefore by his silence admitting his guilt? Sometimes silence is the greater truth. Furthermore we protect our childen sometimes by our silence or by leaving out certain details.

I really suspect that most of these critics about the church's "deception" are themselves not as forthright as they expect the church to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Scott's attitude is directed more to those who did not seek available information and study these things out in their mind before taking the leap into the LDS church. He's much nicer than I am. All I hear is wah wah wah.

I think you pretty much have it right, talisyn. I ws speaking to the victim mentality that characterizes many of those who rationalize having abandoned their faith over intellectual issues, when they made little effort to gain knowledge while they were member. Far from being condescending, my comment was an implied recognition that beastie is too intelligent for me to find the role of the poor, misled, naive investigator tucked away in a rural corner of Virginia (albeit one with a college, it turns out ) to be credible.

[ttribe]

I really suspect that most of these critics about the church's "deception" are themselves not as forthright as they expect the church to be.

I don't know about "most", but the phenomenon does rear its head quite frequently; our friend Andrew Callahan showed that in this very thread.

[Deborah]

I think that character matters, because it defies reason for an omnipotent being to choose someone with serious character flaws to be his representative on earth.

I agree 100%. Character does matter, and I judge Joseph's character by the testimonies of those faithful saints who were closest to him and knew him as a man of impeccable character and charity, not by people a couple of hundred years later who take little known incidents out of context and thereby assume things about him that people who actually knew him would never conclude (including even many non-LDS who met him).

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been involved in several depositions for my work and have always been instructed to answer the question as succinctly as possible, don't elaborate and don't tell more than is asked. Telling the truth and nothing but the truth doesn't mean you have to tell every detail of something, particularly those details that aren't pertinent to the discussion. It's ridiculous to say that silence constitues falsehood or deception. Christ himself was silent before Herod. Was he therefore by his silence admitting his guilt? Sometimes silence is the greater truth. Furthermore we protect our childen sometimes by our silence or by leaving out certain details.

I really suspect that most of these critics about the church's "deception" are themselves not as forthright as they expect the church to be.

I think, more often than not, that's the case.

[ttribe]

I think that character matters, because it defies reason for an omnipotent being to choose someone with serious character flaws to be his representative on earth. For heavenâ??s sake, even businesses run by mere mortals know better. The messenger matters, and the messenger matters even more when the message is primarily moral.

You mean like messengers such as Jonah, Moses (a convicted murderer), Paul (accessory to murder), etc.?

[beastie]

I think the missionaries really should take along a few copies of the Ensign or New Era or Friend along with them when they meet with investigators. There's a lot of good stuff in those magazines

Yes, but they have to make sure the pick the right issues â?? the ones that contain articles about the multiple accounts of the First Vision, JSâ?? polygamy, etc.

However, almost any library in the country will have something about Mormons, pro or con. I went to high school in an area that had maybe 1% LDS population and even the libraries there had something. This was way before the internet. This was before personal computers. It was barely past Atari.

Oh, my college library did have two books about Mormonism â?? written by evangelicals who believed mormons were going to hell. The palpable bias and prejudice convinced me to completely disregard everything contained therein. If I had taken them more seriously, perhaps I could have learned of the existence of â??these issuesâ?.

Now, I had a waited to get baptized until I returned home for the summer, I may have been able to find something more in my hometown library â?? but we all know that missionaries donâ??t encourage investigators to wait to get baptized until they can research church claims.

Remember the warm fuzzy feelings you get when talking to the missionaries? Remember the admonishment to nurture and grow your testimony?

Of course I remember those warm fuzzy feelings, and some more intense than warm and fuzzy. But reading more about religious experiences across the board taught me that human beings from all sorts of religious backgrounds have these sort of experiences. It is logically impossible that the simple fact of these experiences bestows some sort of legitimacy on specific teachings or dogma associate with the background religion, because they all contradict one another. So whatever these experiences mean, they donâ??t mean that the religion in question is â??trueâ?, or that its claims are true.

I spent years â??growing my testimonyâ?. I spent years trying to retain faith after learning about â??these issuesâ?. It didnâ??t work.

I have no doubt that some believers will sneer and roll their eyes at my next statement, but no matter, because itâ??s true: I have known more peace, contentment, and joy after having left the church and becoming an atheist than I ever knew as a mormon.

ttribe:

You mean like messengers such as Jonah, Moses (a convicted murderer), Paul (accessory to murder), etc.?

Absolutely!!! I firmly believe the Bible should be held to the same standard as mormonism. It's not just the messengers who are suspect in the Bible, but God Almighty himself - condoning mass murder, and "taking" young virgins after just having murdered their entire families. I readily agree - this should be far more troubling than JS' behavior.

[beastie]

I think you pretty much have it right, talisyn. I ws speaking to the victim mentality that characterizes many of those who rationalize having abandoned their faith over intellectual issues, when they made little effort to gain knowledge while they were member. Far from being condescending, my comment was an implied recognition that beastie is too intelligent for me to find the role of the poor, misled, naive investigator tucked away in a rural corner of Virginia (albeit one with a college, it turns out rolleyes.gif ) to be credible.

Wow. Even better. Are you actually accusing me of lying???