For those who felt deceived

[MatthewG]

Beyond recreation, I would say to be a mild catalyst for critical skeptical thought.

I got my PhD years ago in mathematics and I am a tenured professor. But I was 2 or three years older than my competitors and in math, age is an issue (or so warned one of my professors when I graduated).

Such an educated stupid person.

[Mars]

If I ever continue my education, I'll be sure to make sure the math professor doesn't jump when I say "Tarski."

[ERayR]

I left the church at 15-16 (I'm 18), mostly from the internet. With all the thougths, theories, and ideas on the net, it was not a difficult experience compared to what others might have had to go through. I talk to friends that are my age that are still in the church, and some that have left the church. Those who have left have all said the use of the internet for their best source. My friend and I were talking that the "Mormon Life" is like a small glass shell, and its especially fragile as a teen. I feel that my generation is the first that has such a vast amount of knowledge at our fingertips, and for that I am grateful.

I think it will be interesting to look at statistics in the next couple of decades and see if the internet will affected youth members.

Remember that not all knowledge is of equal value. It must be sifted and weighed. Some you will find that while it is knowledge and has the apearance of truth and value is not so. Sift wisely or you might hear the words that were spoken by the grail knight when the villan drank from the wrong cup in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. "He chose poorly"

[Kyle]

I donâ??t think those were the real reasons why they left the Church. I think that the reasons were either that they never had a testimony (and didnâ??t bother to get one); or else they lost their testimony through transgression. Loss of testimony invariably comes through transgression; and the antidote to that is repentance, nothing else.

zerinus

Is it possible people leave because they know the church is wrong?

[Kyle]

Remember that not all knowledge is of equal value. It must be sifted and weighed. Some you will find that while it is knowledge and has the apearance of truth and value is not so. Sift wisely or you might hear the words that were spoken by the grail knight when the villan drank from the wrong cup in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. "He chose poorly"

You're right of course. But it would be extremely niave and arrogant to suppose this doesn't apply to you.

[beastie]

I've always been fascinated by the marriage angle. When Orson Hyde went to the Holy Land, Joseph Smith "married" his wife. Upon his return, she "married" him back and there were no disputes between them. Well after his return, she had a son that was Orson's, not Joseph's. There also were other married women that Joseph "married," but what exactly was this marriage?

The fact is, no one knows what took place behind closed doors and they presume to know what they could not.

Joseph "married" a teenage girl. Did they ever consummate it? Why do you think "marriage" equals "sexual relations"?

You're betting your eternal life on what you think happened, even when no one knows what happened.

His wives knew what happened, and "something" happened that caused Sylvia Sessions to believe her daughter, Josephine, was Joseph's daughter, as she told her on her deathbed.

Now, obviously, Sylvia thinking that Josephine was Joseph's daughter does not automatically mean that he was her father. Women can be wrong about that, particularly if another man is involved..say one's legal husband. But what it does mean is that something happened to make Sylvia think that Joseph was the father, and there's only one something that normally leads women to draw that conclusion.

IMO, it's fantasy to pretend that there isn't good evidence that the something took place between JS and some, if not many, of his wives, particularly when several of them, or other firsthand witnesses (such as family members who saw them share a bed at night), stated as much.

(ps, TJane and Tarski...you're old!

zerinus

I donâ??t think those were the real reasons why they left the Church. I think that the reasons were either that they never had a testimony (and didnâ??t bother to get one); or else they lost their testimony through transgression. Loss of testimony invariably comes through transgression; and the antidote to that is repentance, nothing else.

This is another fantasy believers tell themselves. The hard, cold reality is that some people believed just as fervently as you do now, and left the church for the reason that they no longer believe it is true. That might make you uncomfortable, but it's reality.

anijen:

I had a confirmation from the Holy Ghost validating the Prophet Joseph and the Book of Mormon. After I learned about polandry, Fanny Alger, preisthood ban, MMM etc I still could not deny the spiritual confirmation that I had.

I don't deny the spiritual confirmation I had. I don't deny it occurred, and I don't deny how I interpreted it. But, with the help of additional information (particularly about the chemistry of belief), I interpret it differently.

It's kind of like a 16 year old falling in love, and experiencing all those intense emotions for the first time. No one could tell that 16 year old that part of what he or she is feeling has to do with hormones and brain chemistry, and these strong feelings do not necessarily mean that person is THE ONE. Many years later, with additional life experience and/or other studies, that same person may, and likely will, interpret those same feelings he/she had as a sixteen year old in an entirely different manner. That doesn't mean the person now denies it occurs, or denies that it was intense - it just means he/she interprets it differently years later.

[JLFuller]

His wives knew what happened, and "something" happened that caused Sylvia Sessions to believe her daughter, Josephine, was Joseph's daughter, as she told her on her deathbed.

Now, obviously, Sylvia thinking that Josephine was Joseph's daughter does not automatically mean that he was her father. Women can be wrong about that, particularly if another man is involved..say one's legal husband. But what it does mean is that something happened to make Sylvia think that Joseph was the father, and there's only one something that normally leads women to draw that conclusion.

IMO, it's fantasy to pretend that there isn't good evidence that the something took place between JS and some, if not many, of his wives, particularly when several of them, or other firsthand witnesses (such as family members who saw them share a bed at night), stated as much.

This is one of the faith things. On the surface there appears to be ample evidence that Joseph was involved in something we do not sanction. But the record is so filled with inaccuracies, distortions, and falsehoods about him that it puts just about everything concerning the subject in doubt. I firmly believe we do not know the whole story. However I have faith that we will find out someday.

[zerinus]

Is it possible people leave because they know the church is wrong?

No, it isnâ??t, because it isnâ??t wrong! They may think that it is wrong, or come to the false conclusion that it is wrong; but it is not possible for them to know that it is wrong; because I happen to know that it is right, as surely as I know that I am here and you are there.

zerinus

[Sevenbak]

Am I to understand that you knew about Fanny Alger, early Mormon "polyandry", the Egyptological issues about the BoA and the full history and initial uses of the JS seer stone at age 17? Was your first exposure from apologetic sources? Did you get the info slowly bit by bit, line upon line (inoculation)?

Well, not everyone reacts to information in the same way. There are many who after reaching OT8 and getting the inside scoop on Xenu and the million year galactic war, stay with Scientology. To each his own.

Do you actually have the audacity to think that all others who have learned these things should react the same way you do and leave the church? Do you not acknowledge the actuality that there are many of us who also have learned these, but don't react the same you do. The testimony and witness from the spirit, manifest in a variety of ways to many on this board, is far greater even the sum total of all we don't understand or comprehend in it's fulness.

I know that JS, with all his faults was a man, and that he was a prophet of God, with all his perfection. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and never have been, in the history of mankind.

[beastie]

This is one of the faith things. On the surface there appears to be ample evidence that Joseph was involved in something we do not sanction. But the record is so filled with inaccuracies, distortions, and falsehoods about him that it puts just above everything concerning the subject in doubt. I firmly believe we do not know the whole story. However I have faith that we will find out someday.

Let's focus, for the moment, on just this one evidence of Sylvia's - her belief JS was the father of her child.

There's no faith required to analyze this statement. Clearly, Sylvia saying that JS was Josephine's father meant that she had Joseph had the type of relationships that could lead to conception of a child. Either she lied about this or told the truth. There is no faith involved in that analysis. She was on her deathbed, and had very little reason to lie to her daughter. In addition, other wives - or family members of those wives - made statements (sought by the LDS church in order to prove to the RLDS that JS did practice polygamy, ironically) that also demonstrate that those particular women had that type of relationship with Joseph. Either they lied or they told the truth.

These evidences were sought by church leaders, and were obtained from JS's wives who were still believers. There is no cause to suspect inaccuracies, distortions, or falsehoods in these reports.

BTW, in regards to the entire thread and other posts made therein, the fact that believers resist something for which there is ample evidence demonstrates that this information is troubling. The troubling nature of just this one issue, in combination with the many other issues that could be raised, ought to be enough to convince anyone that people sometimes leave the church for no reason other than that they no longer believe is it true.

to sevenbak

QUOTE(Tarski @ Mar 15 2009, 02:48 PM) *

Am I to understand that you knew about Fanny Alger, early Mormon "polyandry", the Egyptological issues about the BoA and the full history and initial uses of the JS seer stone at age 17? Was your first exposure from apologetic sources? Did you get the info slowly bit by bit, line upon line (inoculation)?

Well, not everyone reacts to information in the same way. There are many who after reaching OT8 and getting the inside scoop on Xenu and the million year galactic war, stay with Scientology. To each his own.

Do you actually have the audacity to think that all others who have learned these things should react the same way you do and leave the church? Do you not acknowledge the actuality that there are many of us who also have learned these, but don't react the same you do. The testimony and witness from the spirit, manifest in a variety of ways to many on this board, is far greater even the sum total of all we don't understand or comprehend in it's fulness.

I know that JS, with all his faults was a man, and that he was a prophet of God, with all his perfection. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and never have been, in the history of mankind.

Hmmm. Tarski didn't say that others who learn these things should react the same way he did. In fact, he specifically said that not everyone reacts the same way. Of course, he also said that some people learn about Xenu and still stick with scientology. That you drew the conclusion that his remarks meant that others should leave the church as he did is pretty insulting to Scientology. Did you mean to be so dismissive and insulting to the sacred beliefs of others?

[Kyle]

No, it isnâ??t, because it isnâ??t wrong! They may think that it is wrong, or come to the false conclusion that it is wrong; but it is not possible for them to know that it is wrong; because I happen to know that it is right, as surely as I know that I am here and you are there.

zerinus

First, what does it mean to "know"?

How do you know "it" is true?

How do you know that you did not reach a false conclusion?

Defining knowledge(or knowing) is the most crucial step in this process.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is it possible people leave because they know the church is wrong?

No.

Though it's certainly possibly for somebody to leave because he or she thinks the Church is wrong.

Some who leave the Church do it for this reason.

[Daniel Peterson]

Am I to understand that you knew about Fanny Alger, early Mormon "polyandry", the Egyptological issues about the BoA and the full history and initial uses of the JS seer stone at age 17? Was your first exposure from apologetic sources? Did you get the info slowly bit by bit, line upon line (inoculation)?

I don't believe that I can give you my exact age as each of these items first entered my radar screen, but I began -- you did notice my use of the verb to begin, didn't you? -- to learn about controversial issues quite early.

I learned about them from various sources. My father wasn't a member then, my mother was semi-active, I grew up surrounded by non-Mormons in California, I read lots and lots of Mormon history; I had lots of opportunities to run across challenges.

Well, not everyone reacts to information in the same way. There are many who after reaching OT8 and getting the inside scoop on Xenu and the million year galactic war, stay with Scientology. To each his own.

And there are intelligent, informed people -- even mathematicians, if you can believe it -- who become Scientologists, Communists, nudists, vegans, atheists, and/or Democrats. Go figure.

[hordak]

You're betting your eternal life on what you think happened, even when no one knows what happened.

How is that different from anyone who practices any religion?

You think Joseph Smith restored the true Gospel

another thinks Mohamed did

another thinks L Ron Hubbard did

etc. etc.

Everyone is betting eternal life on what they think happened, even when no one knows what happend.

[Kyle]

No.

Though it's certainly possibly for somebody to leave because he or she thinks the Church is wrong.

Some who leave the Church do it for this reason.

And how do you know this?

Before you answer the question, first define what it means to know, or what your definition of knowledge is.

That is a pretty heavy statement, and you better have some sort of proof or knowledge to back it up.

[zerinus]

Defining knowledge(or knowing) is the most crucial step in this process.

That is a problem that we both share equally. I think that each person will have to decide that for himself (herself). All I can say is that as far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that I am using that word correctly, honestly, and responsibly with respect to my own state of understanding. You are free to question or doubt that if you wish

zerinus

[Tarski]

Such an educated stupid person.

Care to offer some evidence that I am a stupid person (other than I don't give credence to beliefs about ghosts, spirits, seer stones, or whatever)?

Is it my spelling? LOL

Perhaps it is because I share a good deal of similar opinions about life and the universe with well known idiots like, say, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, or Daniel Dennett? Of course, I don't slavishly accepting everything these guys say (they disagree with each other in many ways). I think about it and study it.

Anyway, what are your reasons for labeling me a "stupid person"?

Wait. I think I've got it! I'm stupid because I don't believe in Mormonism!

I'm surprised this sentence is tolerated by the way--I know I couldn't say it here and get away with it.

[Mars]

Hawking sure left the door open.

At least he did in A Brief History of Time.

[Kyle]

That is a problem that we both share equally. I think that each person will have to decide that for himself (herself). All I can say is that as far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that I am using that word correctly, honestly, and responsibly with respect to my own state of understanding. You are free to question or doubt that if you wish

zerinus

I am just glad you are aware that you can not prove anything.

[hordak]

Hordak

I have only been a member of the church since 1958 but I have to tell you that I have never heard of some the things you bring up in your post. Where did you get some of this stuff? Have you been reading the God Makers again? Come on old buddy. You know that the JoD is not doctrine and that doctrine is established by living prophets and opinions by dead people are just opinions and not doctrine. You should know by now that deification is a first century Christian belief still believed by many of the early church fathers and spoke about clear into the fifth century. You should also know that the whole polygamy story is still not understood or told.

Take a look at the Gospel principals manual. Alot of opinions made there way into that. Alot of the "opinions" (the non PC ones that don't make it into the manuals) were taught as doctrine. I mean if President Monson Got up at GC and told of "gods law regarding the African race"

It would be doctrine.

This mean Prophets (in their official capacity) can and have been wrong. But they can't admit that because it might lead to people questioning the new prophet.

So we hear "it's not doctrine" while ignoring the fact that at one time it was.

[Mars]

Tarski, the board is slanted by definition toward the Mormons. You know that...

Plus, the 'stupid' remark was (if Matt will permit me to read his mind) aimed at you because of the little dig you shot at Mormons by the comparison to Scientologists and the ridiculousness of their position. No, you never said the word 'stupid' but I took it as such. So did LoAP (his 'lame' remark) and Matt.

We probably weren't the only ones.

[Tarski]

Tarski, the board is slanted by definition toward the Mormons. You know that...

Plus, the 'stupid' remark was (if Matt will permit me to read his mind) aimed at you because of the little dig you shot at Mormons by the comparison to Scientologists and the ridiculousness of their position. No, you never said the word 'stupid' but I took it as such. So did LoAP (his 'lame' remark) and Matt.

We probably weren't the only ones.

Let Matt speak for himself.

I anticipate that my ability to offer reasons why certain beliefs are indeed ridiculous will exceed Matt's ability to demonstrate that I am stupid.

[Tarski]

Hawking sure left the door open.

Left the door open to what?

I have no problem with open doors. It's the doors that have been confidently closed without even the pretense of there being evidence.

Example: "I Know here is a God and he is a Man from planet X and wants you to do Y and Z (cue sound of slamming door)"

"I don't know" is infinitely better when there is no evidence or reason on offer.

[Deborah]

I learned about them from various sources. My father wasn't a member then, my mother was semi-active, I grew up surrounded by non-Mormons in California, I read lots and lots of Mormon history; I had lots of opportunities to run across challenges.

This was my experience in California. I joined the church when I was 14 and soon was confronted with "No Man Knows My History", plural marriage and blacks and the priesthood. Being the 60's this latter was particularly hard for me to understand. However, I'm with Anijen in that the beautiful doctrines which no one else taught as well as the very strong conversion experience made these things seem unimportant, or at least not important enough to remove my testimony.

It is interesting though, that the point most of you make is you would probably have left the church in any case, or not joined, had you known these things sooner. I guess this is what I was trying to discover, so obviously it isn't so much the timing of getting the information as it is getting it period. Except for Tarksi of course who would have lived a hedonistic life without guilt while in his youth!

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.

BTW, I wanted to say something about Xenu since Tarski seems to like that example. Personally I don't find that so far-fetched as some might because technically LDS also believe we are from another world and strangers in a strange land on this earth. Besides which I'm a big BSG fan!

[MistyAnn0414]

No, it isnâ??t, because it isnâ??t wrong! They may think that it is wrong, or come to the false conclusion that it is wrong; but it is not possible for them to know that it is wrong; because I happen to know that it is right, as surely as I know that I am here and you are there.

zerinus

What makes you say that they have come to a false conclusion? What makes you right and them wrong? I believe that you have come to a false conclusion. The Holy Spirit has testified to me that Mormonism is false, and it wasn't through warm and fuzzies.