For those who felt deceived

[Daniel Peterson]

I have the right to draw conclusions based on what I observe. I was observing.

Of course you have the right to draw conclusions, whether poorly or well.

What conclusion were you drawing? That Mormons here endorse poor treatment of others? If not, please clarify.

[Billy]

Except for when you are wondering why missionaries were white shirts??

I know it is a rule, and I ALWAYS wore a white shirt and a tie when I was on my mission, but to be honest I still do not know when this rule started, who made up this rule, and if this rule was inspired by God. Please fill me in on the details, I would be interested in knowing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am careful to give accurate information about the LDS church because if I give false information it only discredits my position in the long run. I try to limit the information that I use to the LDS website, Standard Works, J of D, and writings by LDS Apostles and Prophets.

I don't buy that rationalization. It is too easy to take something out of context, convey a misleading impression, and then coyly claim that one is "careful to give accurate information." I see it done over and over.

[Billy]

I don't buy that rationalization. It is too easy to take something out of context, convey a misleading impression, and then coyly claim that one is "careful to give accurate information." I see it done over and over.

You are so quick to jump on the "out of context" or "misleading impressions" bandwagon. In Utah, a lot of non LDS are more familiar with the LDS faith. But outside of Utah I challenge you to ask non Mormons questions about your beliefs, I think that you will be surprised at their lack of understanding of what you believe. Ask them about your belief in eternal marriage, polygamous marriages in heaven, God the Father having a wife or wives, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God lived as a man on another planet, baptism for the dead etc.

Please report back your findings, I would be interested in hearing about your experience.

[Teancum]

Its not condescending, it is truthful.

No it is not truthful. It is condescending. And it is a defense mechanism. I am LDS but I certainly have to admit my testimony is much different than it used to be. But even before that I came to understand that honest people arrive at different conclusions. There is little reason to be arrogant and condescending to someone like beastie. I found her story honest, sad and compelling. I understand how devastating the loss of faith can be for someone like beastie. And the reason the stories start sounding alike is because so many have the same experience. They feel betrayed by a Church that requires honesty to enter its temple but is not totally forthcoming in the disclosure of sensitive issues that may cause people to not join or commit. One wonders why investigators are not given more time to study and search and even encouraged to do so.

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

Oh well bully for you. Do we care?

[Deborah]

Ask them about your belief in eternal marriage, polygamous marriages in heaven, God the Father having a wife or wives, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God lived as a man on another planet, baptism for the dead etc.

You should not be the person answering these questions and I find it offensive that you presume to ask people what we believe and then tell them your version.

[Jeff K.]

No it is not truthful. It is condescending. And it is a defense mechanism. I am LDS but I certainly have to admit my testimony is much different than it used to be. But even before that I came to understand that honest people arrive at different conclusions. There is little reason to be arrogant and condescending to someone like beastie. I found her story honest, sad and compelling. I understand how devastating the loss of faith can be for someone like beastie. And the reason the stories start sounding alike is because so many have the same experience. They feel betrayed by a Church that requires honesty to enter its temple but is not totally forthcoming in the disclosure of sensitive issues that may cause people to not join or commit.

Oh well bully for you. Do we care?

Apparently you do care.

And it is truthful regardless of your own opinion. Everypoint I raised has been legitimate even if the package its wrapped in isn't with the nicest bow.

I don't talk of the loss of faith as if it is some kind of cosmic accident she didn't see coming. Beastie chose to let go or lose her faith on step at a time, she chose the path she is on. And then like some spoilt child she blames others for the path she took, and claims betrayal when every choice made, in all those situations were her choices and no one elses.

One wonders why investigators are not given more time to study and search and even encouraged to do so.

One wonders when people will mature and take responsibility for their own actions. Even years later its still somebody elses fault.

[Billy]

You should not be the person answering these questions and I find it offensive that you presume to ask people what we believe and then tell them your version.

Bingo, that is the point, IF the LDS church, including the missionary force presented these ideas in a more visible way, then people would already know about these things, and people would not be surprised when asked about them. But this is not the case, these areas are not brought up and not really discussed, that is why non Mormons do not know about them.

Petition the Church leaders to open up these ideas to a wider audience, include some of these ideas in the missionary discussions. It is only fair to those who are potential converts. They may even want to consider commercial spots etc.

[Deborah]

There is little reason to be arrogant and condescending to someone like beastie. I found her story honest, sad and compelling.

I guess that's an example of how different people come to different conclusions because I find her story full of holes, although I'm sure she sincerely believes it. I think it's a little condescending to reference "someone like beastie" who you apparently feel can't handle the criticism. If that is the case she really shouldn't be on forums like this, but as far as I can see she's pretty well able to express herself and stand up to the jabs.

Bingo, that is the point, IF the LDS church, including the missionary force presented these ideas in a more visible way, then people would already know about these things, and people would not be surprised when asked about them.

But why is it your job to bring these things up to others?

[Daniel Peterson]

You are so quick to jump on the "out of context" or "misleading impressions" bandwagon. In Utah, a lot of non LDS are more familiar with the LDS faith. But outside of Utah I challenge you to ask non Mormons questions about your beliefs, I think that you will be surprised at their lack of understanding of what you believe. Ask them about your belief in eternal marriage, polygamous marriages in heaven, God the Father having a wife or wives, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God lived as a man on another planet, baptism for the dead etc.

As Dr. Gary Lawrence's recent book How Americans View Mormonism demonstrates rather painfully, Americans by and large don't know even the most basic things about us (e.g., that we claim to represent a restoration of ancient Christianity):

http://www.howamericansviewmormonism.com/

And that isn't for want of trying on our part.

That they aren't familiar with your spin on such basic and essential doctrines as Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer! and God is a polygamist! is scarcely surprising.

[ttribe]

Bingo, that is the point, IF the LDS church, including the missionary force presented these ideas in a more visible way, then people would already know about these things, and people would not be surprised when asked about them. But this is not the case, these areas are not brought up and not really discussed, that is why non Mormons do not know about them.

Petition the Church leaders to open up these ideas to a wider audience, include some of these ideas in the missionary discussions. It is only fair to those who are potential converts. They may even want to consider commercial spots etc.

We seem to have no shortage of people on this Board who seem to think they know better how to run a worldwide religious organization...when they have absolutely no experience doing anything of the kind. The living definitions of "armchair quarterbacks", it would seem.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are so quick to jump on the "out of context" or "misleading impressions" bandwagon.

Only because distortion and out-of-context quotation is the anti-Mormon modus operandi. The sources one quotes are not nearly as important as whether one quotes them in their doctrinal and historical context.

In Utah, a lot of non LDS are more familiar with the LDS faith. But outside of Utah I challenge you to ask non Mormons questions about your beliefs, I think that you will be surprised at their lack of understanding of what you believe. Ask them about your belief in eternal marriage, polygamous marriages in heaven, God the Father having a wife or wives, Jesus being the brother of the Devil, God lived as a man on another planet, baptism for the dead etc.

Please report back your findings, I would be interested in hearing about your experience.

Whether or not there is generally accurate understanding of Mormonism among the non-Mormon public is a separate matter from whether or not someone, you for instance, can be trusted to convey such understanding fairly or accurately.

[Daniel Peterson]

And the reason the stories start sounding alike is because so many have the same experience. They feel betrayed by a Church that requires honesty to enter its temple but is not totally forthcoming in the disclosure of sensitive issues that may cause people to not join or commit. One wonders why investigators are not given more time to study and search and even encouraged to do so.

For the record:

I deny that the Church is dishonest with its history.

Nor do I see any evidence that Jesus gave a lot of time for his converts to do library research or field investigations before joining. The call to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, for example, seems to have been pretty sudden and imperious. There was no full disclosure of all of the niceties of Christian doctrine, let alone an indication of the suffering and death that discipleship would bring to these men. "Come, follow me!" was the command. And it was a command.

Of all people, I'm certainly not opposed to the study of history and doctrine. But Christianity seems never to have been conceived by its founder as a floating historiographical seminar.

That a small but significant number sincerely claim to have been blindsided by Mormon history is well worth considering, and, to me at least, quite painful. I would like to see something done about it. In fact, I've been trying for years to do something about it myself. But, again, I deny any implication that the Church is dishonest with its history.

[Billy]

Only because distortion and out-of-context quotation is the anti-Mormon modus operandi.

If I asked a non Mormon the question, "Did you know that the LDS believe that God the Father has a wife?"

Would that be an "out of context", twisted, anti-Mormon question?

[Mortal Man]

This thread has dragged on for 31 pages now with no clear progress. However, careful readers may have noted that DP has inadvertently admitted to knowing everything about church history, mesoamerican archaeology and ancient Egypt when he was 17. A minute's reflection on this subtle yet compelling clue makes it pretty clear who's responsible for the mess where in. Therefore, in the interest of progress, mutual understanding and fence-mending, I propose that we all blame DP for the cover-up and move on with our lives.

Nothing personal of course.

[Billy]

But, again, I deny any implication that the Church is dishonest with its history.

Lets not use the word "dishonest" that is too strong a word. How would you characterize Gordon Hinckley's comments when asked the question below?

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

(Gordon Hinckley responded)

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President...S_Doctrine.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

[talisyn]

This thread has dragged on for 31 pages now with no clear progress. However, careful readers may have noted that DP has inadvertently admitted to knowing everything about church history, mesoamerican archaeology and ancient Egypt when he was 17. A minute's reflection on this subtle yet compelling clue makes it pretty clear who's responsible for the mess where in. Therefore, in the interest of progress, mutual understanding and fence-mending, I propose that we all blame DP for the cover-up and move on with our lives.

I would agree....except there is and never was a cover up. Funny how one or two words can change everything?

I belong to a people who took land from natives peoples, by scheme or by blood shedding. I belong to a people who have tried to influence political outcomes in issues that have really nothing to do with them. I belong to a people who has covered up or at the very least omitted sensitive information in their history. I belong to a people who denied African-Americans opportunity to advance in the hierarchy. I am....

a USA citizen. Had you going there for a bit, didn't I?

[Jeff K.]

I would agree....except there is and never was a cover up. Funny how one or two words can change everything?

I belong to a people who took land from natives peoples, by scheme or by blood shedding. I belong to a people who have tried to influence political outcomes in issues that have really nothing to do with them. I belong to a people who has covered up or at the very least omitted sensitive information in their history. I belong to a people who denied African-Americans opportunity to advance in the hierarchy. I am....

a USA citizen. Had you going there for a bit, didn't I?

You could also be European, Indian, and various African groups within the continent (without the African American apellation).

[Gervin]

Of course you have the right to draw conclusions, whether poorly or well.

Obviously

What conclusion were you drawing? That Mormons here endorse poor treatment of others? If not, please clarify.

If I draw any conclusions and decide to share them on this board then I'll be glad to clarify them if they are misunderstood.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not quite sure why you seem to be feeling so belligerent.

If you had a point, can you possibly rephrase it a bit? Because I evidently haven't grasped it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lets not use the word "dishonest" that is too strong a word. How would you characterize Gordon Hinckley's comments when asked the question below?

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

(Gordon Hinckley responded)

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President...S_Doctrine.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

You bring this up weekly. It's been asked and answered. What makes this time any different?

[Gervin]

I'm not quite sure why you seem to be feeling so belligerent.

If you had a point, can you possibly rephrase it a bit? Because I evidently haven't grasped it.

belligerent? as in hostile? I think you give me too much credit for hanging on your every word. I don't have any conclusions I care to share. No more or less.

[ttribe]

You bring this up weekly. It's been asked and answered. What makes this time any different?

It came up on his rotation of cut-and-paste gotchas...nothing more than that.

[Daniel Peterson]

belligerent? as in hostile? I think you give me too much credit for hanging on your every word.

What is your problem? Why the aggressiveness? I simply asked, quite civilly, for clarification as to what you meant.

I don't have any conclusions I care to share. No more or less.

Okay. So your comment above meant nothing, or, anyway, nothing that you're willing to clarify or share. You just felt like posting it. Or something like that.

[Billy]

You bring this up weekly. It's been asked and answered. What makes this time any different?

1. CFR that I bring this up weekly

2. What is your response, or link me to your response from this site.