For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

I will bet good money that your little private Methodist College has a catalogue and microfische and more to the point could also order from other churches such information that you might request. Even King College in Bristol TN, a very very small Presbyterian church college had such access in the 1970's.

[Jeff K.]

Who said I have a hard time taking a poster seriously in their conversion???

So, once again, we hear the same old refrain: the loss of one's testimony is due to neglect, sin, or hurt feelings.

Funny, those are the same reasons JWs say JW apostates lose their faith, too.

I'm sorry, this comment doesn't make any sense in the context of my statements you quoted.

Yes, knowing how the missionary system works, I have a very hard time taking responses seriously that say, as an investigator, I should have subscribed to the Ensign, the Dialogue, and hunted for material on microfiches before joining the church. If you've been a missionary, you know as well as I do that missionaries try to commit people to baptism as fast as possible, and would be dismayed to hear an investigator was postponing joining the church in order to research church history.

No missionary forces you into the water. Yes they want to baptise you, and quickly too. But that doesn't negate your responsibility and your "woe is me" attitude that somehow it is forced.

By the way I have had investigators subscribe to the ensign and also had families give the ensign subscription as gifts to investigators. Not so hard really.

It appears to me you are just moving the goalposts looking for excuses.

And here I am coing from the middle of rural nowhere and still able to hear a great deal if I chose to.

What was the term "knock and it shall be opened unto you"?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Hi, MichaelW. Thank you for sharing your very personal experience. I respect what you've written and accept it as a completely honest and truthful description of what has really occurred in your life.

I especially like what you wrote in your last paragraph about how, had your experience been different, you would not have found certain things so 'troubling.' That's exactly how I feel...but from the other side of the coin. Because of what I've experienced, I don't find those same things troubling at all. However, if I'd experienced what you have, I would.

I have no idea why exactly people like you and me can have such different experiences, but I appreciate the fact that you, at least, can understand someone like me, and I try to return the favour.

I hope you got some good rest!

[Ray Agostini]

I will bet good money that your little private Methodist College has a catalogue and microfische and more to the point could also order from other churches such information that you might request. Even King College in Bristol TN, a very very small Presbyterian church college had such access in the 1970's.

I agree that for those who really want to become informed, even the anti-Mormon Salt Lake City Messenger was available since the early 1960s. But new converts don't think about this. They aren't converted by logic, nor historical enquiry. They are converted by how they "feel". So when someone discovers "other avenues" of knowledge post-baptism, it should not be surprising that many of them alter their beliefs.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's called the Holy Spirit, Ray.

Best.

[Ray Agostini]

It's called the Holy Spirit, Ray.

Best.

Thanks for that reminder, Blair. As far as I know, though, the Holy Spirit isn't a qualified historian (not that this would make sense anyway). Nor is the Book of Mormon, strictly speaking, "a history". Joseph Smith emphasised its precepts. And to this day the Church leaders don't emphasise it as history. It might be a good idea to take the precepts, and abandon the history claims. But I know this will go down like pork in a Jewish synagogue.

[Ray Agostini]

I would bet that I put a great deal more thought and effort into investigating and understanding the church before I joined as a convert than you did in leaving the church. Since all you needed was benign neglect.

That's rather harsh on beastie. But if you're a betting person, list what you read before you joined the Church.

I look forward to your list.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My list includes One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish.

[Ray Agostini]

My list includes One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish.

Which is more than I can say pre-baptism.

[Ray Agostini]

Sorry, goose, next time don't try to be a gander.

That's very informative discussion. And very civil.

[Ray Agostini]

As did I. There were libraries, there was a plethora of anti Mormon information out there. Print media, news media, micro fische (when you can find it). Even in rural Virginia you could get the information.

And your list of how many of these books you read before joining is.............?

[Jeff K.]

That's rather harsh on beastie. But if you're a betting person, list what you read before you joined the Church.I look forward to your list.

From 30 years ago? Would you like the dictated conversations with various ministers and friends I spoke with too? Maybe my parents, the ones still alive?Spare me please, though there was a great cartoon that was played at the local evangelical church, very aryan.I don't have much truck for foolish people.

That's very informative discussion. And very civil.

No less dishonest than selective quotes without context. But hey, it is foolish to expect better, so I will appreciate the irony.

[Ray Agostini]

From 30 years ago? Would you like the dictated conversations with various ministers and friends I spoke with too?

You mean like the late "Dr." Walter Martin? That's not serious enquiry. Evangelicals and "pop anti-Mormons" only made my then belief stronger.

Maybe my parents, the ones still alive?Spare me please, though there was a great cartoon that was played at the local evangelical church, very aryan.I don't have much truck for foolish people.No less dishonest than selective quotes without context. But hey, it is foolish to expect better, so I will appreciate the irony.

Well if you formed your opinions based on cartoons, any opinions, they might need some reassessing. The truth seems to be that you knew nothing about Mormonism before you joined, yet you have a hard time accepting that those who read up on the subject, post-baptism, could come to a different conclusion than yours.

Is there any reason why they should be considered "dishonest"?

[talisyn]

My list includes One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish.

Great book. Very thought provoking.I wonder if the red fish ever thought about the time when it was happy to be a blue fish but changed color because it found information somewhere that the very first blue fish was actually a rainbow trout.

Couldn't resist

Personally I like The Foot Book.

[Pahoran]

Although, due to the internet, these numbers are probably rapidly dwindling, I imagine even today a significant number of active LDS think JS was a monogamist.

And what you choose to imagine is something that nobody here is answerable for except you.

Snip a lot of wasted bandwidth trying to leverage an argument against the Church of Jesus Christ from what you merely imagine.

A few years back I saw a survey that purported to show that most Christians in the pews were pretty ignorant of their denominational history. I rather "imagine" that most people in most places are pretty ignorant of most of history, other than what they were spoon-fed at school. Meaningless speculations about "why" a particular group you just coincidentally happen to despise "would" be any more ignorant of history than anyone else before you've made even the slightest attempt to measure said ignorance is utterly self-serving.

The question for me is why should members â?? or, for heavenâ??s sake, investigators - have to become hobbyist historians in order to find out information that seems pretty basic and, in the end, very important to many individuals?

The details of the private lives of people more important than themselves have always been "very important" to some "individuals." The correct term for such is "gossips." Whether such details are even remotely important to the mission of the Church is another question entirely.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

As I've indicated before, I think people tend to replay their memories with some pretty serious editing when it comes to the church and what they remember of when they were still "active" vs what they want to remember now to justify their choices.

[Jeff K.]

You mean like the late "Dr." Walter Martin? That's not serious enquiry. Evangelicals and "pop anti-Mormons" only made my then belief stronger. Well if you formed your opinions based on cartoons, any opinions, they might need some reassessing. The truth seems to be that you knew nothing about Mormonism before you joined, yet you have a hard time accepting that those who read up on the subject, post-baptism, could come to a different conclusion than yours. Is there any reason why they should be considered "dishonest"?

You presume that newspapers of the day and inquiry from various theologians is "pop anti-Mormons" this in the same breath you want a recitation of every discourse and every article read my me in my teens? Then in a burst of self righteous ignorance, you grasp upon the simple mention of one cartoon shown to kids in the 70's and presume that is the only read when in fact that is not what I said or implied..... I love the hypocrisy applied there. You may not be aware of this but not everyone of a religious conviction in the south is married to their first cousin and most of the "preachers" I spoke with were degreed. Many of them were hostile to Mormons but that did not necessitate them being ignorant boobs as you have implied. Now that might be different in whatever corner of the the US or world you live in. The truth seems to be that you are relatively ignorant of most of the US and perhaps are not really that informed as to the general nature of religion, an excellent poster child for anti Mormons who claim that we are insular and backwards in our knowledge of others.As to having a hard time, I don't have a hard time, I have seen beasties kind in all sorts of settings. It is almost always the same story, heavily edited, and heavily in slanted for personal martyrdom. The hard time I have is when someone can't take seriously the idea of personal inquiry being indepth because for some reason they didn't do it.

Although, due to the internet, these numbers are probably rapidly dwindling, I imagine even today a significant number of active LDS think JS was a monogamist.

The one thing that was very clear before I joined the church was that Joseph Smith and the Mormons started polygamy in the US, that was hammered home and the members of our small branch in the south knew that too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Although, due to the internet, these numbers are probably rapidly dwindling, I imagine even today a significant number of active LDS think JS was a monogamist. Now why would a significant number of active LDS believe JS is a monogamist?

Perhaps because they've never bothered to open the Doctrine and Covenants?

[Scott Lloyd]

The one thing that was very clear before I joined the church was that Joseph Smith and the Mormons started polygamy in the US, that was hammered home and the members of our small branch in the south knew that too.

It has always mystified me how, for some people, the very thought that Joseph Smith would have put into practice the revelation from God that he himself received is a testimony killer, while the common knowledge that Joseph's successor as prophet, seer, revelator and holder of the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, namely Brigham Young, had umpteen wives doesn't bother them nearly as much.

[sethpayne]

As I've indicated before, I think people tend to replay their memories with some pretty serious editing when it comes to the church and what they remember of when they were still "active" vs what they want to remember now to justify their choices.

Deborah, I 100% agree. We all tend to remember and retell our past in a way that reinforces or describes our present circumstances. In a sense, we all "justify our choices" in the way we tell our conversion stories or our de-conversion stories.

[sethpayne]

It has always mystified me how, for some people, the very thought that Joseph Smith would have put into practice the revelation from God that he himself received is a testimony killer, while the common knowledge that Joseph's successor as prophet, seer, revelator and holder of the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, namely Brigham Young, had umpteen wives doesn't bother them nearly as much.

Scott, I am with you here. In reading a lot of ex-Mormon narratives I saw this specific complaint time and time again -- that when they were members, they were never taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I often wondered if we grew up in the same Church because I don't recall a time not knowing that JS had multiple wives.

Now, I certainly didn't know a lot of the details of Joseph's practice, such as polyandry, and initially I was a surprised to learn this. So, I can see how people may be a bit "shocked" to learn some of the details of the early practice.

[Jeff K.]

It has always mystified me how, for some people, the very thought that Joseph Smith would have put into practice the revelation from God that he himself received is a testimony killer, while the common knowledge that Joseph's successor as prophet, seer, revelator and holder of the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, namely Brigham Young, had umpteen wives doesn't bother them nearly as much.

I had a harder time dealing with the idea of a living prophet than I did polygamy, since I had already known Muslim polygamists in Europe. Polygamy wasn't nearly as big a deal for me as a prophet that still spoke with God. Though, upon reflection, such a thing should seem obvious.

[Deborah]

Deborah, I 100% agree. We all tend to remember and retell our past in a way that reinforces or describes our present circumstances. In a sense, we all "justify our choices" in the way we tell our conversion stories or our de-conversion stories.

Which is why journals are so valuable.

[Daniel Peterson]

As I've indicated before, I think people tend to replay their memories with some pretty serious editing when it comes to the church and what they remember of when they were still "active" vs what they want to remember now to justify their choices.

The comparison that often comes to my mind when listening to certain apostates is that of a bitter divorce.

"I never loved you!" says the angry ex-wife. "My life with you was hell!"

Which may be true in some cases, but often isn't true at all. But that doesn't mean that the sentiment, when spoken, isn't entirely sincere.

[Jeff K.]

"I never loved you!" says the angry ex-wife. "My life with you was hell!"

As long as its not "Sex with you was never good" --- I can live with it.