For those who felt deceived

[Daniel Peterson]

As in, "I tore this page out of my dictionary"? or that it doesn't apply to the church's curriculum?

It doesn't apply to the Church's current curriculum.

Anyway, if "whitewash" is too charged, then they selectively edit the lesson manuals.

Any book that hasn't been "selectively edited" will be unreadable.

We do "Church history" every four years, mostly subordinated to the study of the text of the Doctrine and Covenants. Amateur teachers get about forty shots during that year, each lasting about forty-five minutes, to teach a class that almost certainly hasn't read the assignment for that period.

I think the Church does a pretty good job at teaching its basic history and scripture. Most American Protestants can't name a single one of the four gospels, most American Jews can't tell you who is supposed to have written the Pentateuch, most American Christians can't tell you whether Acts is in the Old Testament or the New Testament, and many Americans don't recognize the name of Martin Luther. They also can't give you the date of the American Civil War within four decades, or, speaking of the younger generation, tell what countries we fought against in World War Two. Against that sad background, Mormons are doing pretty well.

Do I wish that Church members knew more? Desperately. Do I think that some of our very limited curriculum time ought to be turned over to meditations on Will Bagley, George D. Smith, and Fawn Brodie? Not a chance.

[beastie]

Reread Beastie. Nowhere did I say that there was not good and beautiful in the protestant faiths, in the Catholic faith or just in the world itself.

I wasn't in on it but I think I can safely say that it was not a nefarious plan to go after Beastie regarless of her wishes. My guess is that you showed and interest and indeed was interested so someone shared what was important to them. You saw enough at that timeto embrace it for awhile. Eventually you found things that bothered you and so someone has to accept the blame for you not being satisfied.

I have a hard time believing youâ??ve actually been reading my posts. You certainly didnâ??t read the one this was responding to with any level of care.

[Free Agent]

The missionaries are not to blame. The do as told. But the Leaders are. They could develop a more comprehensive study program for investigators, they could give lessons that in a respectful way explore some of the difficult issues and disclose them. If the missionaries were told to teach this way they would. Rather than hurry the investigator into baptism with little knowledge about the Church pleading that all they need is a some sort of "feeling" to know it is true, take time to teach. Have them attend and show commitment for say six months. Give them a calling, have them pay tithing, have them go through more study before they decide if it is really true and want to alter their lives for the LDS Church.

Why is that wrong. Why teach the bare essentials then say "well you could have researches all this one your own had you not been lazy..."

I just thought I'd jump in and say that one of the things we dealt with in our disaffection and subsequently leaving the Church was having an 18 year old son who we had always intended would serve a mission, as did he. When the Preach My Gospel was released and did not address any of the issues that were causing our disaffection, we just could not allow him to go out and serve and bring souls to Christ with the feeling that he could not share all he was now learning together with us as a family.

[Daniel Peterson]

You feel that missionaries ought to be teaching about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, sifting through obscure testimonials on Nauvoo polygamy, giving amateur presentations on Amerindian DNA, announcing their views on pre-classic Mesoamerica, articulating the pro- and con- positions on Proposition 8, and the like?

[Honorentheos]

It doesn't apply to the Church's current curriculum.

Any book that hasn't been "selectively edited" will be unreadable.

While I agree, I think we both know there is a nuance to this that is being selectively editted out of your response.

Do I wish that Church members knew more? Desperately. Do I think that some of our very limited curriculum time ought to be turned over to meditations on Will Bagley, George D. Smith, and Fawn Brodie? Not a chance.

I know you do. I actually wish you or those like you had a more prominent hand in creating the lesson material. And I don't think either of us are suggesting that this should include discussions on the negative material written on church history. I would never suggest Will Bagley to someone who wanted to understand the LDS faith or the MMM for example.

But - and its a big one - the church bears institutional responsibilty for what it omits from the lesson manuals and there are more than a few recent examples that I feel prove you are turning a less-than-critical eye to the church cirriculum.

The BY manual and plural marriage is one where simply adding a date or two in, as you suggested yourself, makes sense and really is not anything that most members don't know. And yet,...

As another example I have a hard time thinking that statements such as, "The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. " from the Teachings of Joseph Smith manual isn't a little dishonest. There is a big difference between "a number of such marriages were performed in his lifetime", and "He was married to a number of plural wives in his lifetime." It would appear the latter statement is the more correct. The first could leave a person to conclude that JS was not a partisipant. It is part of the feeling of dishonesty I spoke of in the previous posting. Not outright dishonest, but it feels wrong.

[Free Agent]

You feel that missionaries ought to be teaching about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, sifting through obscure testimonials on Nauvoo polygamy, giving amateur presentations on Amerindian DNA, announcing their views on pre-classic Mesoamerica, articulating the pro- and con- positions on Proposition 8, and the like?

One thing I know is that every young man and woman that enters the MTC should have a baseline, working knowledge of the more troubling aspects of our church history, the "meat" - because they will be encountering many people who investigate the Church and will ask them pointed questions about things they may not have knowledge of (i.e. Joseph's polygamy, changes in the BofM, blacks & the priesthood). I'm not saying they need to be experts, but at the very least they need to know that these things happened in order to effectively direct the investigator to study it out further for themselves.

[Free Agent]

While I agree, I think we both know there is a nuance to this that is being selectively editted out of your response.

I know you do. I actually wish you or those like you had a more prominent hand in creating the lesson material. And I don't think either of us are suggesting that this should include discussions on the negative material written on church history. I would never suggest Will Bagley to someone who wanted to understand the LDS faith or the MMM for example.

But - and its a big one - the church bears institutional responsibilty for what it omits from the lesson manuals and there are more than a few recent examples that I feel prove you are turning a less-than-critical eye to the church cirriculum.

The BY manual and plural marriage is one where simply adding a date or two in, as you suggested yourself, makes sense and really is not anything that most members know. And yet,...

As another example I have a hard time thinking that statements such as, "The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. " from the Teachings of Joseph Smith manual isn't a little dishonest. There is a big difference between "a number of such marriages were performed in his lifetime", and "He was married to a number of plural wives in his lifetime." It would appear the latter statement is the more correct. The first would leave a person to conclude that JS was not a partisipant. It is part of the feeling of dishonesty I spoke of in the previous posting. Not outright dishonest, but it feels wrong.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. I feel that many hours went into carefully crafting that sentence - sharing some but not all of the story.

[Teancum]

There is, simply, no practical way for the Church ever to avoid being charged with having deliberately failed to disclose all of the information that each investigator might find pertinent to making a major life-altering decision, because there are virtually infinite numbers of potential "defeaters" out there that one person or another might find lethal to faith.

For this person, it's Joseph Smith and plural marriage.

For that one, it's archaeology and the Book of Mormon.

For the other one, it's multiple accounts of the First Vision.

For someone else, it's changes in the text of the Book of Mormon.

For yet another person, its the Book of Abraham papyri.

For Tom, it's the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

For Bob, it's Proposition 8.

For Bobbi Jo, it's the status of women in the Church.

For Billie Sue, it's the temple.

For Tim, it's the Church's stand against abortion.

For Sally, it's the Church's too permissive attitude toward abortion.

For James, it's the former priesthood-restriction on blacks.

For Jamie, it's the Church's perceived meddling in politics.

I've heard all of these reasons given for rejecting Mormonism, and many dozens more besides.

I can't imagine any missionary program being seriously expected to introduce all of these issues to bewildered investigators.

Of course nobody is going to be totally satisfied. But honestly I think they can do better. And so do you. You have said a level C approach would be a good thing. How about this. Have all investigators read RSR along with the BoM, D&C and BoA before they join. Have a high school senior seminary course that uses RSR as its text. That would be a good start.

It really is not an all or nothing proposition.

[beastie]

As another example I have a hard time thinking that statements such as, "The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. " from the Teachings of Joseph Smith manual isn't a little dishonest. There is a big difference between "a number of such marriages were performed in his lifetime", and "He was married to a number of plural wives in his lifetime." It would appear the latter statement is the more correct. The first would leave a person to conclude that JS was not a partisipant. It is part of the feeling of dishonesty I spoke of in the previous posting. Not outright dishonest, but it feels wrong.

Yes, this is part of the phenomenon. Statements are made that can easily be interpreted in a way at variance with the reality. So when members refer to Ensign articles that talk about JS' polygamy, I'd like to see the exact wording of those articles. Are they worded in such as a way to allow someone who believes that JS was only sealed to women, and not actually "married" in any real sense of the word - many after his death - to read the article and retain that impression?

[Teancum]

Then you must, in order to be consistent, condemn Christ for the sudden conversions that, the New Testament says, he clearly both expected and accepted.

Well you know the NT is nice and I really love it. I think some of these were extraordinary situations. Or we just may not have teh details where perhaps Jesus did spend a lot more time in instruction.

There would always be plenty of room for the disaffected to note that their favorite issues had not been disclosed.

You do the best you can. This is no excuse to do nothing more. I highly doubt you would take the same stance for the requirements the SEC imposes on financial investments. Is the system perfect? No. Do crooks still perpetrate fraud on unsuspecting investors? Just read the papers or listen to the current news. Is the information complex and hard to understand for many? yep.

So should we just through up our hands and say "Well you know someone is going to complain that a prospectus should contain this or that so let's just not do it. Oh and the info is just to much to have financial planners explain so we better pass on that as well."

This is essentially your argument.

Look, I'm not opposed to people knowing more than they do. I'm deeply sorry that many members know so little, and that some are blindsided by historical information that they're unprepared to handle. I would like to innoculate them against such problems, and I've tried over the years to do that. But I think suggestions that missionaries effectively conduct seminars on historical difficulties, and so forth, are both unrealistic and unbiblical.

If missionaries are not able to do so then provide other resources that can do so. As far as the biblical approach, well maybe that needs improving upon as well. Or maybe we really don't have all the details.

[Ray Agostini]

There is, simply, no practical way for the Church ever to avoid being charged with having deliberately failed to disclose all of the information that each investigator might find pertinent to making a major life-altering decision, because there are virtually infinite numbers of potential "defeaters" out there that one person or another might find lethal to faith.

For this person, it's Joseph Smith and plural marriage.

For that one, it's archaeology and the Book of Mormon.

For the other one, it's multiple accounts of the First Vision.

For someone else, it's changes in the text of the Book of Mormon.

For yet another person, its the Book of Abraham papyri.

For Tom, it's the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

For Bob, it's Proposition 8.

For Bobbi Jo, it's the status of women in the Church.

For Billie Sue, it's the temple.

For Tim, it's the Church's stand against abortion.

For Sally, it's the Church's too permissive attitude toward abortion.

For James, it's the former priesthood-restriction on blacks.

For Jamie, it's the Church's perceived meddling in politics.

I've heard all of these reasons given for rejecting Mormonism, and many dozens more besides.

I can't imagine any missionary program being seriously expected to introduce all of these issues to bewildered investigators.

I would agree that it probably isn't practical, and I don't know of any organisation that works this way. Perhaps one difference is in the election of political candidates, where both the media and individuals scrutinise canditates, but even then many people elect a candidate, only to later find out things about the person they didn't know, and don't like. And sometimes candidates don't reveal in detail what their long term plans are. I think we see this invariably in politicians.

So I can't imagine the Church cheerfully providing copies of Mormonism: Shadow Or Reality?, along with the Book of Mormon. Or a free one year subscription to Dialogue. They don't even provide Maxwell Institute literature to investigators, and by and large, in my experience, apologetic literature is mostly unknown among "average members". I think this was well pointed out by Nibley many times, that at "the BYU" students were not interested in the things he found "exciting", and the concept of continuing learning (In "Zeal Without Knowledge"). Some people are simply content with what they have, and not interested in the "mysteries", those B.H.Roberts called "disciples pure and simple".

Roberts also recognised, though, that there were issues that could in the future threaten the youth of the Church, the very issues he dealt with. I don't believe he provided a solution, but he certainly recognised the problem, and accurately so. Seventy, nearly eighty years on we have seen what he was talking about in 1930.

A pause here to answer tailsyn's "mote and beam" question. Why was Roberts so concerned, and saw what he felt were genuine challenges to the faith that could do untold damage, yet other GAs merely brushed them aside? If it will not help our cause, they told Roberts, then why should we bother?

Back to Dan's post. All of the points of disaffection you have outlined could, over a long period of time (in some cases not), add up to disaffection. You know the old saying, loss of faith seldom comes like a tire blow out. Beastie herself outlined a two year struggle. It's not as if she woke up one morning and decided the Church was false. It's not as if she said "I need an excuse to leave the Church and upset my family". Perhaps 75% of the outline might be embraced by one who eventually loses faith, and it could slowly happen over a number of years.

So perhaps a more relevant point is, what could be done, post-baptism, to educate the members better? Is there a real fear that this education will see the loss of many members? It's very possible. In fact, likely, and we've seen this happen in the case of John Dehlin, who partly gave up his "ministry" to the "disillusioned and disaffected" because it was having the opposite effect to what he intended. Those bordering on apostasy virtually thanked John for doing his best to tell them the truth, then made the final decision to leave. The truth is that the truth helped them make this decision. So the Church is unlikely to follow suit in something like John's program to help the doubting.

Why we respond differently, what Allen Wyatt called "same process, different outcome", can be seen in a very long post on the FAIR Blog. It can be found Here. To date it has drawn 239 comments, and that will also give an indication of why this thread is so long. It's not a subject with easy answers, and anyone who thinks it is mistaken.

[Teancum]

I reject the term whitewash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_(censorship)

I really don't see, in a world where most people reject the message of the Church and most cultural and intellectual factors are arrayed against it, where the Church has any obligation to make a case against itself.

Do I think Joseph Smith's plural marriages relevant to the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true or not?

No. I actually don't. Not in any direct way. And scarcely in any indirect way.

Well here is where we differ. I think when one makes extraordinary claims that are not able to be proven empirically then we need to examine that persons character in order to know whether we can trust his claims.

and by the way, while I do find polygamy and the issue surrounding its introduction unseemly, over all my view of Joseph Smith up to that point is similar to yours. Thus I humbly remain a Latter day Saint. I do find much truth in what he brought to the world.

[Deborah]

Good and beautiful can be found in many places in this world. There was much that was good and beautiful in the protestant faith in which I was raised. But that didn't stop LDS from trying to convert me to their faith. Why? Because, despite the good and beauty that may have been in my childhood religion, LDS believed there was a "truth" that was important to share - even if sharing that truth sometimes inconvenienced people.

Seriously, beastie, if all was as good and beautiful as you say it was why did you listen to the missionaries? Did they tie you to a chair? You are implying some kind of cohersion here, which is ludicrous. It was your choice to listen, your choice to join, and your choice to eventually leave.

I agree there is much good and beautiful in other churches. I did not join the LDS church because there wasn't but because I felt there was something more.

[Honorentheos]

Yes, this is part of the phenomenon. Statements are made that can easily be interpreted in a way at variance with the reality. So when members refer to Ensign articles that talk about JS' polygamy, I'd like to see the exact wording of those articles. Are they worded in such as a way to allow someone who believes that JS was only sealed to women, and not actually "married" in any real sense of the word - many after his death - to read the article and retain that impression?

Yes. One has to consider what the curriculum allows a person to believe rather than filter out.

For example, I noticed that a couple of posts present a point of view regarding JS polygamy that reflects a lack of knowledge that can only be tied to not having read on the Temple Lot case testimonies as well as the book, In Sacred Loneliness. Yet these views are not given the same critical treatment that your posting recieved regarding the available information you found (or did not find as it may be) while investigating the church. Why?

It has to do with what came out of the filter. Testimony strong? filter ok. Testimony damaged? bad filter...

[Deborah]

For the critic or those who are not feeling the tangible benefits of living the LDS faith, the "factual" history provides evidence that supports that questioning of the validity of the church as the vehicle to Christ that it is claimed to be. This evidence is challenging to ones testimony precisely because one's testimony has been opened up to being challenged.

This is the point I have tried to make at times, that those who let the so called factual history sway them against the church were already looking for a way out.

[Teancum]

Most of our converts won't be murdered for their faith. Unlike those apostles who accepted Jesus' command to "come, follow me."

Did I imply that?

But you know as well as I they will commit valuable time and resources as well as totally change their life style and culture. It is still a big change. Even President Hinckley noted this and said it was not easy to be LDS.

[Deborah]

I'm not saying they need to be experts, but at the very least they need to know that these things happened in order to effectively direct the investigator to study it out further for themselves.

I think Bishop Peteson has already addressed this but I just want to add that the purpose of missionaries is to teach about Jesus Christ and his restored church and to help people reach a spiritual conversion. This doesn't require a history lesson. Those things can all be learned in good time.

I really am curious as to why so many think it's crucial to know before one joins the church. Agency isn't taken away after one joins and one can choose to leave any time. I also think converts who leave need to ask themselves why the joined to begin with and if that reason actually changed with the finding out of more information.

[Ray Agostini]

This is the point I have tried to make at times, that those who let the so called factual history sway them against the church were already looking for a way out.

That's a generalisation. It is, I think, true in some cases. I've seen it happen in some new converts, when at the first bump in the road they're crying they want out. Where I live at least 70% of members, many new converts, go inactive. You can't generalise this to everyone, especially those who've been in the Church for many years and gradually learned things they felt they could no longer accept. There's nothing unreasonable about a person who studies a subject for many years and draws a different conclusion to the one they initially held. It happens all the time, and not just in the Church. I was a liberal, as in small-l, voter for 17 years before I switched to conservative. What brings about change like this is self-realisations, and facts seen in a new and different light. But my opinion isn't going to change the continuing staunch liberal voters. And they're going to wonder, "what happened to him? Why has he turned on us?" yet I'm still a mix of liberal and conservative, liberal on some issues, conservative on others, but not liberal enough to go back to that party.

[Deborah]

Where I live at least 70% of members, many new converts, go inactive.

Out of curiosity where do you live?

What is that old saying, the exception makes the rule. Any description of generalities by definition does not include all. Besides I was playing on what Honorentheos said, because I've rarely heard critics admit they were already questioning the church when they found that straw that made them leave.

[Teancum]

.

I really am curious as to why so many think it's crucial to know before one joins the church. Agency isn't taken away after one joins and one can choose to leave any time. I also think converts who leave need to ask themselves why the joined to begin with and if that reason actually changed with the finding out of more information.

I think I have covered those issues above. Read my post above where I discuss financial disclosure issues.

[zerinus]

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.

So why did you tell me in the other thread that you were a member of the Church?

zerinus

[Calm]

[T]he purpose of missionaries is to teach about Jesus Christ and his restored church and to help people reach a spiritual conversion. This doesn't require a history lesson. Those things can all be learned in good time.

It was in Prince and Wright's McKay biography where it was explained why the Church shifted to a shorter missionary teaching style. Research showed that the majority of those (I believe it was around 70%) who stayed active in the Church after their conversion believed their own conversion occurred within the first few lessons and that additional information and study had little effect on their commitment to their new faith.

[Ray Agostini]

Out of curiosity where do you live?

I live in a place that has lots of kangaroos and wallabies.

You can also check the activity/inactivity figures yourself.

[Apostle_of_Dahesh]

1) The Journal of Discourses are simply published reports of Conference talks; no different from "General Conference" editions of the ENSIGN today. IN Brigham Young's day, the Journal of Discourses was considered "one of the Standard Works of the Church" (see Introduction to the Journal of Discourses, Volume One). It was considered Scripture.

2) Yes, the early Christians taught that men may become "gods". But what did they mean by that? They probably meant that Christian men and women may become "immortal". There is no indication in early Christian history (nothing) about Secret Rites, or the Melchizedek priesthood, or Christians creating their own worlds and peopling them with their spirit-children. Does not exist in ancient Christian history. The Gnostics had some "Secret Doctrines" but there were no secret rites.

Hordak

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.

[beastie]

Seriously, beastie, if all was as good and beautiful as you say it was why did you listen to the missionaries? Did they tie you to a chair? You are implying some kind of cohersion here, which is ludicrous. It was your choice to listen, your choice to join, and your choice to eventually leave.

I agree there is much good and beautiful in other churches. I did not join the LDS church because there wasn't but because I felt there was something more.

I would like you to quote my posts that imply some sort of cohersion.

My point about there being good and beauty in many places, including the Methodist church, was to try and make the point that simply because exmembers may now criticize certain truth claims of the LDS church does not imply that they do not see good and beauty in the LDS faith, or its members. It just implies that they believe that "the truth" needs to be shared. That's why I linked Roger Loomis' article. He articulates that part of what the LDS faith is all about is respect for the truth - no matter what inconvenience it may cause. That's why the LDS church attempts to convert others away from religions that may, by their own admission, contain beauty and good. It's because the truth matters. When exLDS share their criticisms of LDS truth claims, they are saying the same thing - truth matters. So, in a way, exLDS who criticize truth claims they no longer believe are legitimate are honoring their LDS background. Truth matters.