For those who felt deceived

[ttribe]

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.

I'm a believer - why should I sneer and disbelieve your personal account of your own feelings?

[beastie]

I'm a believer - why should I sneer and disbelieve your personal account of your own feelings?

I didn't mean you in particular, of course. Past experience has taught me that some believers tend to insist that critics are unhappy, bitter, etc etc.

[ttribe]

I didn't mean you in particular, of course. Past experience has taught me that some believers tend to insist that critics are unhappy, bitter, etc etc.

Well...some are. But, then again, there is such a thing as unhappy and bitter active LDS as well. The application of universal labels to both sides of this discussion is dangerous.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Actually I get perverse amusement watching you go ballistic over a bit of offhand teasing.

[beastie]

Now Iâ??m extremely curious, since Scott has basically accused me of lying. Iâ??m going to break down my story into parts, and Scott can identify which part he finds lacks credibility.

1. In 1976 I was nineteen years old.

2. I was attending a small, private college (associated with the Methodist church, but not particularly a religious school).

3. In the winter of 1975 my older sister and her husband joined the LDS church after being tracted out by sister missionaries.

4. I became curious about the LDS church because my sister had previously disparaged religion in general.

5. I attended church with her over Christmas holidays, and still curious, attended in my hometown ward when I returned home over the holidays (she lived in a different state).

6. The missionaries spoke to me at that ward and sent my name as a referral to the mission in my college town. (after first trying to convince me to come home every weekend so THEY could teach me, I said no thanks)

7. The missionaries in my very small college town (actually, they were based a good 45 minutes away), began teaching me.

8. Prior to my sisterâ??s conversion, I remember knowing almost nothing about Mormonism. I never knew a mormon, personally, to my knowledge. I had a vague awareness of Brigham Young and polygamy, but that was it.

9. The missionaries (very young and straight from Utah) taught me straight from the script.

10. Other than knowing the mormons were polygamous, I knew nothing of â??these issuesâ?, and had no reason to suspect â??these issuesâ? existed, or there was more to the story than what the missionaries were teaching me.

11. I did my best to obtain more information about Mormonism by going to my college library and looking for books on the topic. There were two small books written by Evangelicals.

12. The books written by Evangelicals were full of â??mormons going to hellâ? tidbits, which made me regard all the information therein as unreliable.

13. I had never heard of any church magazine, including the Ensign, prior to my baptism.

So tell me, Scott, which part just strains credibility??? Which part do you suspect is a lie?

I know itâ??s hard to believe I was ever 19 years old, but youâ??re not that much younger than me, IIRC!

[peeps]

Actually I get perverse amusement watching you go ballistic over a bit of offhand teasing.

"A bit of offhand teasing"? I don't think so. Direct insults, more like.

[Danna]

Sorry for coming in late.

I studied my way out, well before I knew of history problems. I would not have believed anti-mormon literature, I had been assurred that the devil and his league of anti-mormons had planted false records and written and spread lies about the church.

But I did know that the big 4 were doctrine, and on top of that, the bible had errors but the BoM had been translated through the power of God, and the PoGP had been received through revelation and translation of original scripture. So I could really only use the BoM and PoGP to base a belief decision on. Anything other than those two could contain errors or lies and could not be trusted.

On starting seminary, at Church College of NZ, I started really studying those two books in order to affirm my testimony. The contradictions and inconsistencies mounted up and up and eventually spilled over my threshold for rationalising away problems. When I was back home I had access to my parent's wall size bookshelf of LDS approved reading material. in my mid-teens I became science-literate enough to have solid facts against which to compare the doctrine of those two doctrinally perfect works. And it just didn't rack up. If The BoM and PoGP were true, then a young earth, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel and the confusion of languages must all be fact. My parents denied science to accept the scriptures as fact. I could not. I rationalised a non-literal reading for a few years but in the end, Bruce McConkie confirmed it in Mormon Doctrine - The Theory of Evolution was not compatible with church doctrine. The whole story of the Jaredites hinges on the story of the tower of Babel - which was a nonsense. In addition there were internal contradictions in and between the two books as well.

My only regret is that that my youngest two brothers were home-schooled so they would not be exposed to the evils of biology, physics, and geology. I know some mormons can rationalise away the awkward parts of the BoM and PoGP, but you can't pick and choose. It is all God's inspired doctrine, or none of it is.

ETA: I know the D&C is supposed to be doctrine as well, but it seemed to be directly related to church management in the mid 1800s and not so relevant to today. It seemed quite obvious there were 'speaking as a man' verses in there! If I had taken D&C seriously, that would probably have made things worse.

[Daniel Peterson]

To a certain extent, I studied my way into the Church. And (for the record) I still find Mormonism enormously satisfying, intellectually.

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 presume that the implicit contention here is that Joseph Smith had serious -- lethal, disqualifying -- character flaws. I strongly disagree. I see him as a good and sincere man.

[beastie]

I presume that the implicit contention here is that Joseph Smith had serious -- lethal, disqualifying -- character flaws. I strongly disagree. I see him as a good and sincere man.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the character issue. However, despite your own convictions on his character, perhaps you can still recognize why people may find some of his behavior morally problematic.

[Daniel Peterson]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the character issue. However, despite your own convictions on his character, perhaps you can still recognize why people may find some of his behavior morally problematic.

Though I think they're seriously wrong, I can understand some of their concerns.

[beastie]

Though I think they're seriously wrong, I can understand some of their concerns.

That's all I ask from believers.

[Free Agent]

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.

Your point is moot because many of us followed what we thought was counsel from well meaning members who told us to stay away from anti material. I guess it was my mistake to have then just trusted the plethora of books that came my way - such as The Book of Mormon, A Marvelous Work & A Wonder, The Miracle of Forgiveness - which kept me plenty busy along with my high school & college studies while I investigated the Church. I guess when my friends who weren't members of the Church tried to get me to read things they'd read, I should have not trusted the counsel to "read from good books". Honestly, I have no regrets about my 23+years I spent in the Church. I often wonder how different my life may have been had I perhaps been exposed to what I find troubling now. I possibly may have not married the man who introduced me to the Church and had 3 wonderful children with him. And that would be a shame.

Free Agent

[Deborah]

ETA: I know the D&C is supposed to be doctrine as well, but it seemed to be directly related to church management in the mid 1800s and not so relevant to today.

Totally different experience than mine. I find when I read the D&C sections on church management that it is amazing how those things still apply and how orderly God's church is. And how any one can dismiss the Liberty Jail writings as something other than inspirational and God-given is beyond me.

[Free Agent]

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 (emphasis mine) 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.

Scott, I was at BYU after I joined the church at 19. I had the entire BYU library at my disposal, but as others have pointed out, if we didn't have a reason to go digging because our testimonies were strong, and believe me, mine was, why in heavens name would I go trying to find something out I didn't even know I needed to know about? I went to Deseret Book, I bought books in the BYU bookstore - but oops, maybe it was too much Mary Ellen Edmunds or Sheri Dew on my part, or uplifting music, or scripture study. Continue to fault those of us who didn't delve into the historicity of the Church or wander into the Utah Lighthouse Ministry bookstore. And, yes, you were condescending in your statement about the rural Virginia mentality of Beastie. Really, I would expect better from the likes of you.

[Daniel Peterson]

it seems that the original contention that the Church suppresses its history or keeps people from learning about its history has been modified to "It's not fair to expect me to have used the BYU Bookstore or the BYU library to learn about Mormon history."

A much weaker claim, I think. And not very incriminating to the Church.

[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.

The irony.

[Honorentheos]

The irony.

A person who follows a course of self-education on church history and determines for themselves that the church is not the kingdom of god on earth seems to have followed the path your post outlined above (give or take the part about the role of God in the process). If such a person felt that they were given false information, partial information that reflects a bias favorable to the institution over full disclosure, or discouraged from seeking out less favorable material, do they then no longer qualify as educated?

Is it the results that are at issue or the process itself?

While it does not seem to be the point of your post, your observation seems to apply more to the Sunday bench warmers within the church than it does to the educated disserters who have left the church.

[Anijen]

I consider myself well read and educated my wife tells me she married a big nerd but she is happy with her nerd. As I found out about certain aspects that I found troubling I would research ask instructors etc. Finding answers from a positive LDS source is what I would advise. I sometimes think that these people who were led out of the church from anti materials or from books that suggest the church hides its history I would wonder why they didn't try to get better answers? For example if I am torn and about to leave the church because of the MMM and I go and research from Brodie or Walter Martin or the Lighthouse Ministry of course there motivation as for you to see the "truth" (their so called truth). But if I am serious love the church was very active why dont I go to Dan Peterson, Brant Gardner, Hugh Nibley, Bill Hamblin they will not sugar coat it but will give an accurate description.

I also and most importantly would go to the Lord. Ask yourself why would the Lord led you into a false church? Why is your new knowledge of certain events take away from what gave you that testimony in the first place. I hope he answers you the way he has answered me with a increased amount of faith and a strengthened testimony.

Have faith that will always be a requirement.

What are the biggest criticisms against the church in you understanding are they really that big of a deal that a Heavenly Father cant workout?

Lets see;

1)Book of Mormon takes faith yes but if your open to it there are many, many, many bits and pieces here and there that support it.

2)MMM sad part of Utah history but it was not sanctioned by the Church or BY just a bunch of vigilante Mormons hyped up into a dangerous mind set and they made a terrible mistake one that cannot be rectified in this life time.

3) banned priesthood IMO should of never happened but I will not 2nd guess those leaders. It should be perhaps a small comfort that evidence suggest that Joseph Smith did not support such a ban.

4)anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, really? The bible has tons of them too. These anachronisms are probably the language of translator Joseph Smiths best choice for what he knew.

5) Becoming a God. We never stop worshipping our God he is our God and no one else will replace him. If he decides that we should become like him, if you think about it this is actually a very beautiful doctrine and very well supported in history.

6)Jesus and Satan brothers. Please listen to almost any rational active LDS person and this becomes quite clear why that is so sensationalized.

7)Bible does not agree with the Book of Mormon. This is a ridiculous claim, stop listening to your anti Mormon pastor or literature and read the BoM and see for yourself, every page will testify of Christ.

8)Polygamy. Have to remember the restoration was a complete restoration of every principal and doctrine from every dispensation. Joseph was actually threatened by an angel before he finally complied. Every member back in 1831-1845 (marrying age) were converts there was not a single leader in the church who grew up in the church. This was a way for Heavenly Father to raise seed in a quicker manner. Thus when no longer needed he stopped the practice.

9)Polyandry. As far as I'm concerned there was no greater test of faith (shy of God asking you to sacrifice your son). For many this was a test to see what their answer would be, for others they actually needed to have their faith tried this way. This also stopped once God saw that it was no longer needed. Have you ever noticed once the church was stronger this doctrine was stopped and like polygamy once there was a strong core membership it also stopped?

Perhaps your test is not if you could practice polygamy or polyandry but if you would be able to accept that God asked of it in biblical times and as well as when His church was reestablished in its fullness for the last time. Perhaps your trial of faith is; could you accept it was commanded of God. I have asked myself these things and believe it was commanded by Him, therefore I stay, therefore I grow and learn and blessed abundantly with spiritual confirmation that the choice I made is right and it pleases Him.

[Honorentheos]

I consider myself well read and educated my wife tells me she married a big nerd but she is happy with her nerd. As I found out about certain aspects that I found troubling I would research ask instructors etc. Finding answers from a positive LDS source is what I would advise. I sometimes think that these people who were led out of the church from anti materials or from books that suggest the church hides its history I would wonder why they didn't try to get better answers? For example if I am torn and about to leave the church because of the MMM and I go and research from Brodie or Walter Martin or the Lighthouse Ministry of course there motivation as for you to see the "truth" (their so called truth). But if I am serious love the church was very active why dont I go to Dan Peterson, Brant Gardner, Hugh Nibley, Bill Hamblin they will not sugar coat it but will give an accurate description.

For me, personally, Anijen, it wasn't the "truth" that finalized my understanding of the nature of the church as an earthly institution rather than a divinely lead vehicle to "come unto Christ" - it was the apologetics.

Having recently returned from a military activity and with some association with the things that come with military acitvity at it's worst, (six years has flown by. Fortunately for me I never was in combat, but had friends I was in with who were who are now crippled, and two who are remembered...) I was hypersentitive to the need to accept responsibilty for my own moral compass rather than be accepting of insititutional directive. This led me to read where I would otherwise have avoided. But ultimately, it was the language and reasoning used within the apologetics to explain the issues I found that convinced me that there is more of earth than of heaven in the LDS faith.

To take a theme from your statement above, it was a choice - to love truth over all else, including the church, and allow what came to simply be. Where your eye is, there will your treasure be also - to take liberty with something someone once said.

[AmorLibertas]

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 constitutes falsehood or deception.

That all depends on the situation. When a witness is sworn to tell the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; the intent is usually not for them to expound upon absolutely everything they know on the subject; rather, they are expected to relate everything that is pertinent to the question asked in order to provide the most objectively accurate information possible. One is expected not to leave out important and possibly crucial information that might otherwise be less than flattering, especially if doing so will create a different, inaccurate understanding of what occurred. Leaving such information out is considered to be deceitful.

Christ himself was silent before Herod. Was he therefore by his silence admitting his guilt?

Superficially, Jesus' silence meant nothing more than the silence of any other person called to testify on their own behalf who remain silent. It means that they either do not recognize the validity of the preceding against them, or they believe that whatever they might say will be used against them (either construed correctly, or misconstrued). In other words, in the instance you cite, Jesus' silence does not indicate either his innocence or his guilt with respect to the charges brought against him. On the other hand, Jesus' silence does have, as you say, a "greater truth" as far as Christians are concerned, for Jesus' silence is considered to be the fulfillment of prophecy found in Isaiah 53:7.

Furthermore we protect our children sometimes by our silence or by leaving out certain details.

Sometimes, silence, or rather the omission of certain details, may protect those who are not sufficiently mature enough to handle the whole truth; however, sometimes people will use such a notion as an excuse or justification of omitting certain embarrassing details, as much to protect themselves and their own reputation or with regard to the topic at hand, the reputation of the Church, its past leaders, and members. Rather than admit the actual doctrinal reasons for polygamy, some apologists even today will recite the official spin that it was necessary in order to protect or help young women, widows, and their children who were orphaned by mobs persecuting the early Saints, or the idea that there weren't enough men to go around when the truth of the matter is, rather different.

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 suspect that those critics that are less than forthright are that way for much the same reason or justification that Church members and leaders themselves are less than forthright when talking to potential investigators--that being forthright about potentially embarrassing facts might prejudice the listener against the message they are hoping to deliver. Unfortunately, when the listener discovers that the messenger has been less than forthright, the very problem the messenger was hoping to avoid is often manifest when it could have been avoided by simply being honest and forthright to begin with instead of treating their potential audience like children incapable of accepting the whole truth.

[Danna]

The irony.

Hey LoaP,

I fully agree with what you have written. It is an individual responsibility to expand one's knowledge. And on a topic such as one's eternal salvation this is especially so. I read Brodie's book a few years ago, it was an old copy and had been in the library since the 70s, so yes there was stuff available to those who looked, even here downunda. And the Ensign had written about things like the rock in the hat, and I am sure polygamy is in there too. I was reading Friend at that time, but my mother read every word in the Ensign, and was still surprised when I told her about the seerstone, I had to dig out the Ensign reference online before she would believe it. Same with JSjr's plural marriages - I had to show her the entries online at familysearch because not one bookshelf in the wall of books mentioned it - at least in a fashion enabling ready recall to my mother's mind.

The problem is that references to 'odd' material are brief and fleeting, and are countered by a barrage of contradictory information. How many times did the Ensign mention the seerstone? There were many many pictures and descriptions featuring JSjr studying the plates directly, with Oliver sitting at the same table. A brief passing sentence of truth is just overwhelmed by the weight of untrue "artist's renderings". A discrepant item is just tagged "incorrect" - if the reader stops to think about it, it is assessed as an error, or misquote based on the weight of multiple memories of the received view of things. A lot of times tiny discrepancies are just skimmed over - possibly unconsciously. (I am not plucking this out of thin air, in my previous life I often wrote or helped write military exercises, we frequently made use of this tendency in order to: a] amuse the directing staff, and b] help army officers to become aware that they thought like this. I left the army to study this aspect of learning and recall, before my son was diagnosed and I switched focus)

Why does this happen? Why do mormon artists depict JSjr reading the plates? Why do countless bishops (like several of mine) deny that JSjr had plural wives?

Your final note is the key point I think:

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).

Between the first presidency and the members is a plethora of well-meaning leaders and teachers, and other members providing the multiple source, multiple modality, false information which crams up one's head and causes truthful snippets to bounce straight back out again. And well-meaning people who create faith-promoting but false stories. A system has evolved which allows faith-promoting falsehoods to predominate. I doubt this was planned from the outset, but it is successful at creating and maintaining growth (or was till the internet made a serious weight of counter-information available) so, it thrives and replicates as today's convert becomes tomorrows teacher.

Is the church responsible for this? Should those who finally realise some strange fact is true, like the seerstone issue, blame the church for hiding the information in plain sight? or for allowing an unpaid lay clergy to teach falsehoods? or for allowing church artists to use artistic license?

I think the church does have some responsibility for the lack of well-informed professional clergy at ground level. Maybe less-than faith promoting stuff does not need to be emphasized. But at least someone should have some professional responsibility for the information disseminated. At the moment, the situation of "all authority, but no responsibility" allows all manner of nonsense to be spread at the whim of local leaders - with official entities able to claim plausible deniability. It may have been OK in Kirtland, but an unpaid clergy is not a good thing in an organisation of this size. Authority is being delegated with no parallel channel of responsibility. Responsibility requires professional training.

Edit to get rid of unwanted smiley.

[Abulafia]

Anijen said:

Finding answers from a positive LDS source is what I would advise. I sometimes think that these people who were led out of the church from anti materials or from books that suggest the church hides its history I would wonder why they didn't try to get better answers?

Hey..! I did that. I went to my stake president after reading Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner. (which was actually purchased from an LDS travelling book store at a church history symposium that I was attending way back in the 80's.)

My Stake President didn't know the answers...so he took it further up the line to the area presidency.

The area presidency wrote a letter to him, which he showed to me. I can't remember everything in that letter. But it wasn't long, and basically suggested that the sources should be checked and that those were the days of the 'wild west', and to concentrate on first principles.

At the time, I didn't find it to be satisfactory....and let me tell you now that I don't know many LDS (and I keep in touch with a lot of LDS through facebook) that even know about church history, or are even interested in it.

In fact one friend I met up with by chance in a shop, asked me why I left and I didn't go into detail, other than say I had a few problems with church history. Her response was that she knew there was stuff there that might be challenging to faith and she was leaving it well alone, because she didn't want her faith rocked.

In fact, thinking about it another lady on facebook emailed me and asked me to return to church etc and that I was missed, and I told her that I had problems with church history. She responded that she has faith and a simple testimony and she leaves it to those far more intelligent than herself in the church to sort out those issues. (all credit to her. she's a great, kind lady)

I studied history at uni, and so history has always been fascinating to me, but there are a lot of people in the church happy with their faith, secure in their testimony, who really don't feel the need to delve or find out more. Which is fine, but then they can't relate to me or understand why I left.

At least a person (perhaps the majority of LDS who come here) can say that they have studied the issues and still come out with their faith in tact. Maybe that's why I find this place so interesting and challenging to my own view point.

My husband and I were chatting this morning, and we both agreed that to a certain extent all religions are pious frauds, really. It's all about faith and belief and hope rather than sure knowledge in anything. (in our opinion)

I must say though, that I find the Book of Mormon far more interesting when looked at as a product of 19th Century developing theology in terms of a response to living in developing American Culture and an attempt to deal with that culture in an inclusive manner, than I do in looking at it as authentic ancient history. But then I feel that way about much of the bible too, only it's a lot older (which tends to give it more authority)... Which is maybe what Joseph or Sydney were doing with the Book of Mormon, trying to give it authority through making it an ancient document?

See...there's no way I would be welcome back at church with views like this....

Mary

[MichaelW]

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.

It's past midnight, so here's the Cliff Notes version of my experience:

Until the age of 20, I had never committed much of a sin, and I repented and confessed those I committed to my Priesthood authority; I had graduated from Seminary; I never missed a day of church (that I can remember), never missed mutual, never missed any obligation; I had read the New Testament, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon before my mission, and had read the Book of Mormon probably half a dozen times during the first year of my mission; and I never felt the Spirit, not a single time, despite pleading for a testimony. I asked my Bishop about it at my pre-mission interview, and he told me just to keep trying. At my missionary farewell, my brother (who would essentially disown me for a decade after I left the Church) told a story about catching me several times praying at my bedside when I was a teenager, scriptures at my side--and I remember vividly thinking that it wasn't such a touching story, because whatever prayer of many that was, it didn't do a bit of good because I never received an answer.

With that foundation, several events caused an extraordinarily rapid decline in my willingness to abide God's silence--feeling more uncomfortable than I can possibly describe when I first went through the temple; happening upon a first edition Mormon Doctrine about halfway through my mission; and learning about halfway through my mission that Joseph Smith was a mason, and the temple based in large part on masonry. I went from "willing to stick it out" to "looking elsewhere for God" just about overnight--I remember making the break on a specific day, as I knelt in prayer for the umpteenth time, frustrated and I suppose pretty angry at that point. I spent the last half of my mission obeying all the rules and working hard, but going through the motions spiritually, and investigating other religions as worked for my benefit. I served in a very cosmopolitan European city, so I would take any opportunity to learn from Muslims, Taoists, etc... That pursuit continued for several years after my mission--and from there the story gets complicated, and would require far more explanation than I can give before falling asleep (and I don't know that a message board would do it justice, anyway).

As it relates to your blog, I did what you suggest--I searched what was right in front of my face for 20 years. But I wasn't looking to make sense of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, I was merely hoping that Moroni's Promise would ring true. I did everything I possibly could to acquire a belief that would make my life significantly less complicated, but it simply didn't work for me. If I had received an answer to my prayers and truly had a testimony that was more than just a Fast Sunday routine, maybe the history I found so troubling wouldn't have caused a stir. Maybe, as with many faithful Mormons on this board, a failure to discern some logical explanation wouldn't have bothered me, because I could have relied on such a strong spiritual witness that no matter how unseemly a bit of history might be, the Church is true, so ultimately that history just doesn't matter. But I've never been capable of taking that position, despite my efforts to be able to.

And with that, I'm going to bed. Thanks for pointing out the blog.

[beastie]

it seems that the original contention that the Church suppresses its history or keeps people from learning about its history has been modified to "It's not fair to expect me to have used the BYU Bookstore or the BYU library to learn about Mormon history."

A much weaker claim, I think. And not very incriminating to the Church.

Perhaps you can explain how I was supposed to educate myself about issues I didn't know existed as an investigator of the church in 1976.

[mledbetter]

You're right of course. I found the Bible, the BofM, the Pearl of Great price, and the D&C on the net.

What kind of knowledge do you think that I looked up? Why polygamy is bad? Why my mormon parents are so mean? To be honest, I focused on the larger issues such as

The concept of God

The problem defining God

The many attributes of God

The problems of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence

The definition of a Supernatural being

The God of the OT and the NT

The evil in the world and how God is inherently responsible

The dichotomy between faith and reason

The "proof" of faith that almost every religion proclaims

The study of knowledge

The study of how we gain knowledge

The fallacy of Natural theology, The cosmological arguements, the design arguements

The ethics of Jesus

The inaccuracy of the Bible

The inaccuracy of The BofM

These are the things I have studied thanks to the internet.

Yes, it's true, daddy issues can lead to God issues.

My non-mormon parents are mean, too. Must be why I rebelled and became a Mormon. Who knows?