For those who felt deceived

[sethpayne]

Which is why journals are so valuable.

Agreed. They help us look back and see how/what we were thinking at a given point in the past which can be quite an illuminating experience!

[Jeff K.]

Speaking of which, have you ever read Edisons writings?

[Deborah]

Agreed. They help us look back and see how/what we were thinking at a given point in the past which can be quite an illuminating experience!

And sometimes we wonder WHO WAS THAT PERSON???

[sethpayne]

And sometimes we wonder WHO WAS THAT PERSON???

Exactly! I get to look back and wonder who that twit was who occupied my body those many years ago.

[beastie]

Every person posting on this thread is likely familiar with the missionary program of the LDS church. While some details may have changed since I served a mission in 1979-81, and since I was taught and baptized in 1976, I am skeptical that the entire missionary approach has changed, because I think I would have heard about such a momentous change.

Missionaries teach investigators a clear path to â??finding out the church is true.â? That path includes taking the missionary lessons, reading the Book of Mormon, and asking God, with â??sincere intentâ?, whether or not the things the missionaries are teaching are true. All that is required to â??know the church is trueâ? and hence, be willing to be baptized in short order, is a testimony from the Spirit.

At no point is it emphasized â?? or even suggested â?? that investigators delay baptism, even if theyâ??ve â??felt the spiritâ?, in order to learn more about church history through sources outside the church and missionaries. In fact, that scenario would be a missionaryâ??s worst nightmare.

I was a â??golden contactâ?. By the time the missionaries returned for a second appointment, I had already read half the BoM. When they taught me â??how to prayâ?, that very night I prayed and asked â??is the BoM the word of Godâ?, and received an intense spiritual witness. I was ecstatic. I finally knew God existed. Then the next night I prayed again, as the missionaries taught me to do, â??was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?â? This time I felt nothing â?? not even the slightest glimmer of the spirit. I was as devastated as I had been elated the night before. I knew then â?? as I know now â?? that those two issues are logically distinct. I knew they were logically distinct before I ever found out how a revelation had been altered from this:

BC 4:2, p. 10 â?? and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

To this

D&C 5:4 â?? And you have a gift to translate the plates; [and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you;] and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift [until my purpose is fulfilled in this;] for I will grant unto you no other gift [until it is finished].

The missionaries knew it too, because they told me to pray about both of those things. But the missionaries and my sister convinced me that if God had told me the BoM was the word of God, then Joseph Smith had to be a true prophet. I wanted to feel that same spiritual euphoria again, so I convinced myself they were right, and was baptized. I then proceeded to help convert the rest of my family. I immediately immersed my life in the LDS church. It gave me purpose and meaning â?? it was the lens through which I viewed the world. I transferred to BYU. Three years later I served a mission. After returning, I got married in the temple, had three children, and served in many callings, paid my tithing, attended the temple, read the scriptures, attended my meetings, did genealogy work. In the meantime, I happened upon a book in my local library about Emma Smith â?? Mormon Enigma. I was excited, because our library otherwise only had anti-mormon material which I wouldnâ??t touch with a ten-foot pole. This book was written by members of the church!!

Remember, this was long before the internet and long before I had ever heard of FARMS.

Now, of course I had known that JS started polygamy in that he was the one who received the revelation. I also knew Emma was adamantly opposed to polygamy. I knew Joseph wanted to obey the Lord, but since Emma was opposed, I believed he refrained to spare her feelings. I, like many other LDS, believed the first wife had to give her permission. Apparently this was nothing more than wishful thinking on our part. I knew that many women were sealed to Joseph, but my impression had been that this was done largely after his death. I did not believe God would condemn Joseph for not practicing polygamy, particularly since the modern LDS church didnâ??t seem to think it was necessary for salvation. Still, it wasnâ??t particularly shocking to me that Joseph actually did practice polygamy. What was shocking was how he practiced polygamy. He lied about doing so, usually did it behind Emmaâ??s back, causing constant stress to their marriage, and allowed women who turned down surreptitious polygamous proposals to be slandered and libeled by the church press. He married women who already had other husbands. He proposed to other married women and was turned down, sometimes causing great distress. Learning these things, in combination with the fact that I never did receive a testimony that JS was a â??true prophetâ?, began to cause me distress. I began to doubt that JS was a true prophet after all, and that was the reason why God never answered me. So I began my years-long quest to get a testimony of Joseph Smith as prophet. I did what I had been taught to do, and that wasnâ??t researching church history outside church approved sources. I prayed. I read the scriptures. I studied it out in my mind. I discussed it with other believers. Yet I found no resolution. My journal entries from this time period are anguished. While some believers on the internet sneeringly suggest that my faith meant nothing to me, and I was happy to discard it, reality was the complete opposite. It was the most terrifying experience of my life. My entire understanding of the world and myself was based on the LDS worldview. I couldnâ??t imagine how I would live without it. After a while, I found another book written by members â?? Mormon Polygamy. I read that one, too. It only confirmed what I had already learned, and added more dismay at the further deception that occurred regarding the Manifesto. I also began to consider that perhaps the reason God had never answered my prayer about Joseph Smith being a true prophet was that because he wasnâ??t. Maybe he was a fallen prophet, as many early members believed.

So I changed my prayer. Now I just wanted to know if the church was â??trueâ?. Still no answer. Maybe â??trueâ? was too vague, since by then I had concluded that prophets could, in fact, lead the church astray. So I changed it to â??is the CoJCoLDS the only church with the authority of the true priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances?â? The extent to which I was willing to nit-pick to allow God yet one more chance to save my testimony demonstrates how desperately I did not want to lose my testimony, and yet I could feel it fading. I continued to believe that the BoM was â??the word of Godâ?, whatever that meant, but beyond that, I no longer was certain of any claims the LDS church made.

Eventually, after several years of this torture, I realized one day that I already had the answer, I was just afraid to admit it. The answer was no.

I still continued attending church, albeit sporadically. I hadnâ??t yet decided whether or not I would leave the church. One of the sisters I had discussed this with had already told me that even though the church wasnâ??t â??what she once thought it wasâ?, it was still a great place to raise children. I had no idea what impact my exodus from the church would have on my family. Besides, I was afraid. But eventually I realized that my sense of integrity would not allow me to pretend, and I stopped attending altogether. I had my name removed from church records about two years later. (actually, it took two years due to the leadership dragging their feet, but thatâ??s another story)

I still retained my belief in God at this point, and began attending other churches. I eventually settled on the Episcopalian church. I attended for months before deciding to â??take lessonsâ?. In the Episcopal church, the investigatory period is rather drawn out. You meet, in a group, with the priest once a week for around six months, IIRC. Lots of things are discussed, including the history of the origin of the Episcopalian church. Like all religions, the best light is put on the faith, although controversial issues like Henryâ??s divorces are discussed. If I didnâ??t know anything about the missionary approach of the LDS church, the comments of believers here about my responsibility to seek out information about the LDS church from sources other than the church and the missionaries would lead me to conclude the LDS investigatory approach is like the Episcopalian. Itâ??s not. They are completely different approaches.

Again, an investigator telling the missionaries he/she wants to delay baptism in order to research church history on his/her own, using sources outside the church provided sources, is a missionaryâ??s worst nightmare.

What always strikes me about threads like this is the knowledge that there are likely lurkers, who may be weighing these issues themselves, reading this thread. They read these things, and I bet some may wonder why some of you act like it would not only be fine and dandy for an investigator to declare that he/she wanted to delay baptism in order to research church history, but itâ??s actually the investigatorâ??s moral responsibility to do so.

In regards to the original question, which why some of us feel the church hides history â?? my answer to that is that itâ??s a complex issue, and has varied during different time periods. There is no doubt that the LDS church, like other religions, wants only to present its best face towards outsiders who may be potential converts. There is no doubt that LDS leaders, at some point, make decisions regarding what information to emphasize and what information to downplay or ignore. Does this constitute hiding history? It depends on your definition, I suppose.

But aside from that, my readings have led me to conclude that there have been time periods in which the church actively discouraged its faithful historians from sharing problematic information, and restricted access to controversial material.

[Daniel Peterson]

Remember, this was long before the internet and long before I had ever heard of FARMS.

FARMS hadn't been founded yet.

Yes, you're that old.

[beastie]

FARMS hadn't been founded yet.

Yes, you're that old.

Hey, now, that was below the belt!!

Actually, since turning 50, I've forced myself to readjust my definition of "old". 75 is now "old."

[JeffM]

...a revelation had been altered from this:

BC 4:2, p. 10 â?? and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

To this

D&C 5:4 â?? And you have a gift to translate the plates; [and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you;] and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift [until my purpose is fulfilled in this;] for I will grant unto you no other gift [until it is finished].

Why should an LDS member not feel deceived when things like this are going on?

[Deborah]

Why should an LDS member not feel deceived when things like this are going on?

People who want to find fault will find the nit-pickiest things to pick at.

I was watching the Joseph Smith Papers project from last Sunday. Fascinating non-LDS look at Joseph Smith from a scholarly view. Many scholars hold him in much higher regard than a lot of the ex-Mo's.

[Jeff K.]

Every person posting on this thread is likely familiar with the missionary program of the LDS church. While some details may have changed since I served a mission in 1979-81, and since I was taught and baptized in 1976, I am skeptical that the entire missionary approach has changed, because I think I would have heard about such a momentous change.

Missionaries teach investigators a clear path to â??finding out the church is true.â? That path includes taking the missionary lessons, reading the Book of Mormon, and asking God, with â??sincere intentâ?, whether or not the things the missionaries are teaching are true. All that is required to â??know the church is trueâ? and hence, be willing to be baptized in short order, is a testimony from the Spirit.

At no point is it emphasized â?? or even suggested â?? that investigators delay baptism, even if theyâ??ve â??felt the spiritâ?, in order to learn more about church history through sources outside the church and missionaries. In fact, that scenario would be a missionaryâ??s worst nightmare.

I was a â??golden contactâ?. By the time the missionaries returned for a second appointment, I had already read half the BoM. When they taught me â??how to prayâ?, that very night I prayed and asked â??is the BoM the word of Godâ?, and received an intense spiritual witness. I was ecstatic. I finally knew God existed. Then the next night I prayed again, as the missionaries taught me to do, â??was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?â? This time I felt nothing â?? not even the slightest glimmer of the spirit. I was as devastated as I had been elated the night before. I knew then â?? as I know now â?? that those two issues are logically distinct. I knew they were logically distinct before I ever found out how a revelation had been altered from this:

To this

The missionaries knew it too, because they told me to pray about both of those things. But the missionaries and my sister convinced me that if God had told me the BoM was the word of God, then Joseph Smith had to be a true prophet. I wanted to feel that same spiritual euphoria again, so I convinced myself they were right, and was baptized. I then proceeded to help convert the rest of my family. I immediately immersed my life in the LDS church. It gave me purpose and meaning â?? it was the lens through which I viewed the world. I transferred to BYU. Three years later I served a mission. After returning, I got married in the temple, had three children, and served in many callings, paid my tithing, attended the temple, read the scriptures, attended my meetings, did genealogy work. In the meantime, I happened upon a book in my local library about Emma Smith â?? Mormon Enigma. I was excited, because our library otherwise only had anti-mormon material which I wouldnâ??t touch with a ten-foot pole. This book was written by members of the church!!

Remember, this was long before the internet and long before I had ever heard of FARMS.

Now, of course I had known that JS started polygamy in that he was the one who received the revelation. I also knew Emma was adamantly opposed to polygamy. I knew Joseph wanted to obey the Lord, but since Emma was opposed, I believed he refrained to spare her feelings. I, like many other LDS, believed the first wife had to give her permission. Apparently this was nothing more than wishful thinking on our part. I knew that many women were sealed to Joseph, but my impression had been that this was done largely after his death. I did not believe God would condemn Joseph for not practicing polygamy, particularly since the modern LDS church didnâ??t seem to think it was necessary for salvation. Still, it wasnâ??t particularly shocking to me that Joseph actually did practice polygamy. What was shocking was how he practiced polygamy. He lied about doing so, usually did it behind Emmaâ??s back, causing constant stress to their marriage, and allowed women who turned down surreptitious polygamous proposals to be slandered and libeled by the church press. He married women who already had other husbands. He proposed to other married women and was turned down, sometimes causing great distress. Learning these things, in combination with the fact that I never did receive a testimony that JS was a â??true prophetâ?, began to cause me distress. I began to doubt that JS was a true prophet after all, and that was the reason why God never answered me. So I began my years-long quest to get a testimony of Joseph Smith as prophet. I did what I had been taught to do, and that wasnâ??t researching church history outside church approved sources. I prayed. I read the scriptures. I studied it out in my mind. I discussed it with other believers. Yet I found no resolution. My journal entries from this time period are anguished. While some believers on the internet sneeringly suggest that my faith meant nothing to me, and I was happy to discard it, reality was the complete opposite. It was the most terrifying experience of my life. My entire understanding of the world and myself was based on the LDS worldview. I couldnâ??t imagine how I would live without it. After a while, I found another book written by members â?? Mormon Polygamy. I read that one, too. It only confirmed what I had already learned, and added more dismay at the further deception that occurred regarding the Manifesto. I also began to consider that perhaps the reason God had never answered my prayer about Joseph Smith being a true prophet was that because he wasnâ??t. Maybe he was a fallen prophet, as many early members believed.

So I changed my prayer. Now I just wanted to know if the church was â??trueâ?. Still no answer. Maybe â??trueâ? was too vague, since by then I had concluded that prophets could, in fact, lead the church astray. So I changed it to â??is the CoJCoLDS the only church with the authority of the true priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances?â? The extent to which I was willing to nit-pick to allow God yet one more chance to save my testimony demonstrates how desperately I did not want to lose my testimony, and yet I could feel it fading. I continued to believe that the BoM was â??the word of Godâ?, whatever that meant, but beyond that, I no longer was certain of any claims the LDS church made.

Eventually, after several years of this torture, I realized one day that I already had the answer, I was just afraid to admit it. The answer was no.

I still continued attending church, albeit sporadically. I hadnâ??t yet decided whether or not I would leave the church. One of the sisters I had discussed this with had already told me that even though the church wasnâ??t â??what she once thought it wasâ?, it was still a great place to raise children. I had no idea what impact my exodus from the church would have on my family. Besides, I was afraid. But eventually I realized that my sense of integrity would not allow me to pretend, and I stopped attending altogether. I had my name removed from church records about two years later. (actually, it took two years due to the leadership dragging their feet, but thatâ??s another story)

I still retained my belief in God at this point, and began attending other churches. I eventually settled on the Episcopalian church. I attended for months before deciding to â??take lessonsâ?. In the Episcopal church, the investigatory period is rather drawn out. You meet, in a group, with the priest once a week for around six months, IIRC. Lots of things are discussed, including the history of the origin of the Episcopalian church. Like all religions, the best light is put on the faith, although controversial issues like Henryâ??s divorces are discussed. If I didnâ??t know anything about the missionary approach of the LDS church, the comments of believers here about my responsibility to seek out information about the LDS church from sources other than the church and the missionaries would lead me to conclude the LDS investigatory approach is like the Episcopalian. Itâ??s not. They are completely different approaches.

Again, an investigator telling the missionaries he/she wants to delay baptism in order to research church history on his/her own, using sources outside the church provided sources, is a missionaryâ??s worst nightmare.

What always strikes me about threads like this is the knowledge that there are likely lurkers, who may be weighing these issues themselves, reading this thread. They read these things, and I bet some may wonder why some of you act like it would not only be fine and dandy for an investigator to declare that he/she wanted to delay baptism in order to research church history, but itâ??s actually the investigatorâ??s moral responsibility to do so.

In regards to the original question, which why some of us feel the church hides history â?? my answer to that is that itâ??s a complex issue, and has varied during different time periods. There is no doubt that the LDS church, like other religions, wants only to present its best face towards outsiders who may be potential converts. There is no doubt that LDS leaders, at some point, make decisions regarding what information to emphasize and what information to downplay or ignore. Does this constitute hiding history? It depends on your definition, I suppose.

But aside from that, my readings have led me to conclude that there have been time periods in which the church actively discouraged its faithful historians from sharing problematic information, and restricted access to controversial material.

Allow me to be succinct here. It is irrelevant what you martyrdom story regarding your loss of faith is. Everyone has some hardluck story about something that they just couldn't get their hands around. I have heard from lots of people like that. They pretty much all sound the same after a while. Harsh or not, its true. Like a traffic accident "nothing to see here folks, move along".

My entire issue is how you simply find it "hard to believe" that other people where perhaps more thoughtful, did more investigation and were given more patience. And your basic defense is, "well it didn't happen to me". Too bad. That doesn't invalidate anyone else's experience.

Allow me to also add that there are always issues regarding anyone that aren't resolved. Christ was a man of peace and yet took the lash to those outside the temple. We do all kinds of research as to why he would do that, and I personally feel I understand the context. But you won't see me denying Christ because I didn't have some historical resolution for what went on.

And the espiscopal church is a very nice church, very friendly. It imposes little in the way of sacrifice upon its members and asks for very little in the way of faith. Indeed its hardly noticeable relative to the strict imposition of a Mormon life. I am glad you have risen to that level of sacrifice that you feel meets your requirements for eternity.

Again, an investigator telling the missionaries he/she wants to delay baptism in order to research church history on his/her own, using sources outside the church provided sources, is a missionaryâ??s worst nightmare.

What always strikes me about threads like this is the knowledge that there are likely lurkers, who may be weighing these issues themselves, reading this thread. They read these things, and I bet some may wonder why some of you act like it would not only be fine and dandy for an investigator to declare that he/she wanted to delay baptism in order to research church history, but itâ??s actually the investigatorâ??s moral responsibility to do so.

You apparently never learned what it is like to be a missionary. At the beginning of my mission I thought that way too.

Blessing By My Own Hands

A mission is much more and deeper than anything you have mentioned so far.

[beastie]

Allow me to be succinct here. It is irrelevant what you martyrdom story regarding your loss of faith is. Everyone has some hardluck story about something that they just couldn't get their hands around. I have heard from lots of people like that. They pretty much all sound the same after a while. Harsh or not, its true. Like a traffic accident "nothing to see here folks, move along".

Youâ??re the one choosing to identify it as a â??martyrdom storyâ?, not me.

My entire issue is how you simply find it "hard to believe" that other people where perhaps more thoughtful, did more investigation and were given more patience. And your basic defense is, "well it didn't happen to me". Too bad. That doesn't invalidate anyone else's experience.

You completely misunderstood my responses. I did not mean to imply I find it hard to believe that someone may have thoroughly investigated the church through means such as library microfiches before joining. Of course that is possible. What I find hard to believe is the repeated implication that it was obviously my job to know that, number one, there was â??another sideâ? I should be looking for, and, number two, that I should have known where to look. This is what I find entirely unreasonable. For example, a couple of posters suggested that I, as a 19 year old investigator, should have subscribed to the Ensign to find these things out. I had never even heard of the Ensign at that point, besides which, it would take years of subscriptions to happen upon articles dealing with these particular issues. You suggested I should have researched the microfiche library, to which I asked: what was I supposed to know to ask for?

Allow me to also add that there are always issues regarding anyone that aren't resolved. Christ was a man of peace and yet took the lash to those outside the temple. We do all kinds of research as to why he would do that, and I personally feel I understand the context. But you won't see me denying Christ because I didn't have some historical resolution for what went on.

And the espiscopal church is a very nice church, very friendly. It imposes little in the way of sacrifice upon its members and asks for very little in the way of faith. Indeed its hardly noticeable relative to the strict imposition of a Mormon life. I am glad you have risen to that level of sacrifice that you feel meets your requirements for eternity.

My goodness, that sounds quite disrespectful towards the sacred beliefs of Episcopalians.

BTW, I am now an atheist unassociated with any religion.

[Jeff K.]

Not surprising, nope, not surprising at all..

[Jeff K.]

You completely misunderstood my responses. I did not mean to imply I find it hard to believe that someone may have thoroughly investigated the church through means such as library microfiches before joining. Of course that is possible. What I find hard to believe is the repeated implication that it was obviously my job to know that, number one, there was â??another sideâ? I should be looking for, and, number two, that I should have known where to look. This is what I find entirely unreasonable. For example, a couple of posters suggested that I, as a 19 year old investigator, should have subscribed to the Ensign to find these things out. I had never even heard of the Ensign at that point, besides which, it would take years of subscriptions to happen upon articles dealing with these particular issues. You suggested I should have researched the microfiche library, to which I asked: what was I supposed to know to ask for?

I can't tell you where to look. But yes, it is utterly ridiculous for someone to hear a religious point of view and not believe there was another side. There are a myriad of churches out there with their points of view and you never thought to look? Or ask? Or anything? Your lack of intellectual and spiritual rigor on something as important as the spiritual aspects of your life is astounding.

I predict that one day you will again shift from atheism to something else. It seems the currents easily snag your fancy. At least from what I have read.

[MichaelW]

Allow me to be succinct here. It is irrelevant what you martyrdom story regarding your loss of faith is. Everyone has some hardluck story about something that they just couldn't get their hands around. I have heard from lots of people like that. They pretty much all sound the same after a while. Harsh or not, its true. Like a traffic accident "nothing to see here folks, move along".

My entire issue is how you simply find it "hard to believe" that other people where perhaps more thoughtful, did more investigation and were given more patience. And your basic defense is, "well it didn't happen to me". Too bad. That doesn't invalidate anyone else's experience.

Allow me to also add that there are always issues regarding anyone that aren't resolved. Christ was a man of peace and yet took the lash to those outside the temple. We do all kinds of research as to why he would do that, and I personally feel I understand the context. But you won't see me denying Christ because I didn't have some historical resolution for what went on.

And the espiscopal church is a very nice church, very friendly. It imposes little in the way of sacrifice upon its members and asks for very little in the way of faith. Indeed its hardly noticeable relative to the strict imposition of a Mormon life. I am glad you have risen to that level of sacrifice that you feel meets your requirements for eternity.

You apparently never learned what it is like to be a missionary. At the beginning of my mission I thought that way too.

Blessing By My Own Hands

A mission is much more and deeper than anything you have mentioned so far.

Why do you have such a condescending and hostile attitude toward those who struggle unsuccessfully to develop a testimony? You act like you have a personal stake in proving ex-Mormons to be lazy, or sinful, or otherwise not your extraordinary spiritual equal.

[Jeff K.]

Its not condescending, it is truthful.

I don't give much in the way of wiggle room.

But I will repeat for you:

My entire issue is how you simply find it "hard to believe" that other people were perhaps more thoughtful, did more investigation and were given more patience. And your basic defense is, "well it didn't happen to me". Too bad. That doesn't invalidate anyone else's experience.

The irony is your judgement upon me for judging others.

kumbyah away....

[Billy]

Its not condescending, it is truthful.

As a missionary you don't provide a balanced perspective of the Mormon church. Some people who listen to the discussions trust what the missionaries are presenting and don't feel a need to look elsewhere, at least that was my impression as a missionary. But this was before the internet. Now it is so easy to check things out by the click of a button.

[Scott Lloyd]

As a missionary you don't provide a balanced perspective of the Mormon church. Some people who listen to the discussions trust what the missionaries are presenting and don't feel a need to look elsewhere, at least that was my impression as a missionary. But this was before the internet. Now it is so easy to check things out by the click of a button.

And, of course, you get a very balanced perspective on the Internet. Especially from anti-Mormon Web sites.

[Scott Lloyd]

Its not condescending, it is truthful.

I don't give much in the way of wiggle room.

But I will repeat for you:

The irony is your judgement upon me for judging others.

kumbyah away....

Indeed. Implicit in the accusation by many people who claim they were deceived by the Church is that other reasonable men and women have not been exposed to or confronted the same or similar issues and resolved them in a rational way. One wonders where the true condescension lies.

[e=mc2]

We all know your inexhaustible ability to find patterns and interpretations of anything and everything that fit with your elastic new-age version of Mormonism. I can hardly imagine a fact, scenario or document, even an invented one (say like those invented by Hoffman) that you couldn't promptly turn into evidence for the church.

When a method proves everything, it proves nothing.

You are presenting a most idiotic argument for a brainy person I have ever read. Your mischaracturizing the issues I deal with in the Book of Mormon is silly.

[Billy]

And, of course, you get a very balanced perspective on the Internet. Especially from anti-Mormon Web sites.

I think that both can be equally biased. The internet is great in that it gets lots of information out to the masses, some true and some false, but the bottom line is that this information needs to be evaluated and cross checked for accuracy. For example it someone quotes a LDS source, I will often go to the official LDS site and double check it to make sure it has been quoted accurately.

[Daniel Peterson]

As a missionary you don't provide a balanced perspective of the Mormon church.

Unlike, say, a Billy Graham rally, where equal time is given to the findings of the Jesus Seminar and the thoughts of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Or, for that matter, in a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens book, where a sympathetic case for theism is laid out so that readers can make an informed judgment.

[Billy]

Indeed. Implicit in the accusation by many people who claim they were deceived by the Church is that other reasonable men and women have not been exposed to or confronted the same or similar issues and resolved them in a rational way.

When you say "rational" what you really mean is that they were exposed to the same information and stayed a strong member of the LDS church. But I don't think that this is rational, rather it is just different people reacting differently to the same information depending on their individual situation. For example, two people can look at the Book of Abraham, one can say that it is obviously a false translation by Joseph Smith, and the other person can justify it by one of the many "so called" possible explanations, because they have the burning in the bosom, therefore it is true no matter what.

[Billy]

Unlike, say, a Billy Graham rally, where equal time is given to the findings of the Jesus Seminar and the thoughts of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Or, for that matter, in a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens book, where a sympathetic case for theism is laid out so that readers can make an informed judgment.

I find that in mainstream Christian churches there is a push towards discussing these issues, certainly much more than was ever discussed in the Mormon church in my opinion. LDS often spend more on the spiritual or the burning in the bosom, whereas the Christians tend to discuss more of the evidence. It is not uncommon to have discussions on evolution, atheism, cults etc.

[Daniel Peterson]

I find that in mainstream Christian churches there is a push towards discussing these issues, certainly much more than was ever discussed in the Mormon church in my opinion. LDS often spend more on the spiritual or the burning in the bosom, whereas the [other] Christians tend to discuss more of the evidence. It is not uncommon to have discussions on evolution, atheism, cults etc.

I've heard some of those discussions on "cults." (See my book Offenders for a Word.)

I routinely give lectures on evidences for the Book of Mormon, Islam, etc., all over the Church, including audiences of 1500 or so at BYU Education Week. I spoke on Islam to about 600 LDS in Orlando, Florida, back at the end of January, and will do so to an LDS audience in Anchorage, Alaska, next week. About two or three weeks ago I spoke on evidence for the resurrection of Christ to a sizeable audience in Mesa, Arizona. And I'm not the only person who gives such speeches.

[Abulafia]

People who want to find fault will find the nit-pickiest things to pick at.

I was watching the Joseph Smith Papers project from last Sunday. Fascinating non-LDS look at Joseph Smith from a scholarly view. Many scholars hold him in much higher regard than a lot of the ex-Mo's.

I'm no scholar, but I must agree that the more I learn about LDS history (and there is a wonderful amount of contemporary information out there on the internet) the more respect I have for the fact that the LDS church survived at all. It's amazing that the church grew despite Joseph Smith (and Sydney Rigdon). Even some of his most ardent opponents / apostates still believed in the divinity of much of the church and what it was trying to stand for. I honestly believe that there is much that is authentic in its approach and theology. (but not all...sadly)

And now I'll completely show my ignorance by asking what it was exactly that you were watching... Is the Joseph Smith Papers Project a group led by non-members? Who? (I'll go do a search)

I'll also say on polygamy (I havn't read Mormon Enigma) that I don't have a problem with polygamy in and of itself. I can see that on occassion it's use might be necessary to the survival of a group or population. If Brigham and the early members had stayed in the East and had not practiced polygamy, then the church would not be the sizeable force that it is now, and the missionary program with all its faults is probably one of the best tools that the church has to spread its message, and this was the case right from its inception.

What I had a problem with, was that Joseph Smith's behaviour (at the time I read Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner) didn't fit my view of what a prophet should be, or how a prophet should behave. I came to have the standard view of him as given in the first vision and through seminary and the church history section of Sunday School, and later institute. (back in the 70's and 80's), and it has taken me many years to soften that view. I honestly try very hard to understand (and see from their perspective) why the many active and far more knowledgable scholars on this board, who know what I know and very much more, still choose to believe. This is what I find challenging to my present belief system, which is actually, rightly or wrongly quite fluid.

Mary