talisyn Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Doesn't anyone ever read the cited references in the Relief Society and Priesthood manuals? I'm holding in my hand (the one not typing ) the Relief Society manual for Joseph Smith, and it has not only an explanation of sources used and how used (pages 558-564) but footnotes after every chapter. it even has footnotes after the sources appendix. Dec. 21,2009
Deborah Posted March 21, 2009 Author Posted March 21, 2009 I would like you to quote my posts that imply some sort of cohersion. You said "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." You had a choice not to listen, particularly if you were inconvenienced; so if you didn't want to you must have been cohersed. It was a purposely exaggerated statement due to you implication you felt some kind of pressure to listen.
beastie Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 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.This is why some of the posts on this thread have left me scratching my head. Some have accused me of being negligent in my conversion process because I did not delay baptism in order to research church history on my own. As I've repeatedly pointed out, I didn't even know enough to know that I should have been a bit skeptical of the story the missionaries were telling me, and that I should try to find out the "other side" of church history. And yet it's clear that the LDS church wants the conversion process to be exactly like mine was. So if I was negligent, so is the LDS church.You said "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." You had a choice not to listen, particularly if you were inconvenienced; so if you didn't want to you must have been cohersed. It was a purposely exaggerated statement due to you implication you felt some kind of pressure to listen.No. You still aren't listening to me.Recognizing that there is good and beauty in other churches does not stop LDS from trying to convert others to their faith. Why? Because they believe truth matters. So when exLDS criticize certain LDS truth claims, that does not automatically imply that they don't think there is good and beauty in the LDS church or its members. It means that the truth matters to them, too.There was no cohersion involved in my conversion process.
Billy Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 So why is one person's mote another person's beam?That is a great question. Why do some battered women stay with those who batter them?
talisyn Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 That is a great question. Why do some battered women stay with those who batter them?What does that have to do with the LDS Church and those who leave?
Billy Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 What does that have to do with the LDS Church and those who leave?ASSUMING that the LDS church is false, the warts of the church cause some to leave the church just like a battered wife would leave. However some feel comfortable in the church, they have friends and family support, and despite all the warts they still stay. They justify the action of their leaders and all the "funny" stuff that is discovered and blow it off by various means. Such as "the church is perfect, but the people are not", etc.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Our stake president purchased "Rough Stone Rolling" and then purchased it for every bishopric in the stake. Thought it helped us understand Joseph Smith better and the context of the times.I don't exactly see people running away from history.I wish I lived in a stake like that. Not long ago, in conversation with the 2nd counselor in our bishopric, I mentioned that JS was a Mason. He was shocked and kept repeating for several minutes, "Was he really?!? I did not know that. He was a Mason? Really?" I've seen this reaction over and over again from many long-time members of the church on many different issues. I think the BYU/apologetics crowd tends to overestimate the knowledge of the average non-Provo member.On the other hand, all this whining that "The church decieved me!" and "I can't be held responsible for knowing anything." is rather tiresome. I've never bought that line from my students and I don't think it should be indulged here. Questions regarding what books were available in what towns in the 70s are moot points. For over a decade now, virtually anything you want to know has been a mouse click away. The statute of limitations on ignorance expired 7 years ago.
Honorentheos Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 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.I would adjust this to suggest that we (I was once there and have traveled this road) were open to the possibility it wasn't true and if this was the case, finding the way out was the right thing to do.The issue is that of worldview preservation and the way the mind works. I do not care what your world view is - if you believe it strongly you will defend it and find argument that supports your worldview anywhere possible.For someone to be able to even question their current worldview means it has to have been damaged in some manner. The exposure to things like Mormon Enigma may be the thing that causes the damage and creates an environment where one has to reevaluate their worldview (because they need a healthy one to take the place of the one damaged) or it may be part of the evidence that one finds after the damage has been done otherwise. It may be the current issues with the church's stance on same-sex marriage or that homosexuality is a challenge some are born into, etc. The symptoms or the "straw" can be any of the things Dr. P listed. But it is fundamentally about the health of one's psyche.The second part of what I said is also important, Deborah. The believer who sees these historical facts as non-issues does so because of the same condition - only preserving their current worldview is the shortest path to a healthy psyche. It's easier to preserve ones current worldview than have to create a new one.This is why so many critics who have left the church will tell you how difficult it has been. It is. One is basically mending one's worldview and having to formulate one the makes sense of the world based on what you now believe to be true. It takes time, it takes effort, and it hurts.Underlying all of this is the question of the truthfulness of the church - and does it really, REALLY matter to anyone if it is true?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I think the BYU/apologetics crowd tends to overestimate the knowledge of the average non-Provo member.I think you misunderstand "the BYU/apologetics crowd."
Billy Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.It makes a big difference. If you look at a car that has a bad transmission and you know that the transmission is bad you likely would not buy the car or lower the price of the car to cover the cost of the transmission. The same could be applied to misinformation in the church. If information is withheld that if known would of caused you to not join the church, this concealed information has caused loss of time, money, effort, and possibly loss of friends and family.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 At some point, leaders decide what potential converts need to know, or donâ??t need to know. I also believe that they make that decision in regards to active members, as well, which is reflected in the material they choose to emphasize in their instruction manuals. So someone, at some point, decided knowing about how JS practiced polygamy was not important in terms of evaluating his claims. IMO, itâ??s because itâ??s not particularly faith-promoting â?? one of those things that is â??trueâ?? but not â??useful.â?? If it was as faith-promoting as young Joseph refusing alcohol before his leg operation, weâ??d hear about it quite a bit. I'll go along with that.I do think the church recognizes this is an issue, particularly with the increasing availability of this information, and that is why certain historians have been taking a more open approach with the seeming approval of the brethren. I think the process of inoculation has begun, and will only escalate from now on. So maybe in 20 years, apostates wonâ??t have as much justification in feeling deceived. I hope you're right.So all I ask of believers is, like Dr. Peterson suggested, that they have some understanding and appreciation of why these issues do trouble many believers, even if they, themselves, find a way to morally resolve these issues.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 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. Roberts was remarkably prophetic in this regard.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? With the advent of the internet, the grace period has expired. The church must now succeed where Roberts failed. The solution cannot be to go around the room taking turns bearing testimony.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 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.Of course you didn't imply that our converts today face a high risk of execution.That's the point.Jesus' converts did.Yet he expected them to "come, follow [him]," without months of study, without knowing much (if anything) about his childhood and youth, and certainly without full disclosure of the new doctrines they would have to accept or the upside-down crucifixions, etc., they would suffer because of their conversions.If you condemn the leaders of the Church on such grounds, you must, logically, condemn Christ as well. In fact, in the case of the early Christian disciples the stakes were actually much higher, and the demands far more rigorous.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 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. Similar research applies to Time-Share sales.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I live in a place that has lots of kangaroos and wallabies. Hey, that's where I served my mission. Melbourne Greek-speaking.You can also check the activity/inactivity figures yourself. I have and you are correct.
talisyn Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 It makes a big difference. If you look at a car that has a bad transmission and you know that the transmission is bad you likely would not buy the car or lower the price of the car to cover the cost of the transmission. The same could be applied to misinformation in the church. If information is withheld that if known would of caused you to not join the church, this concealed information has caused loss of time, money, effort, and possibly loss of friends and family.What, if you find 'misinformation' your tithing amount gets lowered?Faith doesn't have a money-back guarantee.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 That is a great question. Why do some battered women stay with those who batter them? Am I being battered if I help a new family move into the ward?
talisyn Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Am I being battered if I help a new family move into the ward?If they don't offer pizza you're being sorely abused.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I think you misunderstand "the BYU/apologetics crowd." Well you see, as a U of U alumnus, I must get in the occasional dig.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 It makes a big difference. If you look at a car that has a bad transmission and you know that the transmission is bad you likely would not buy the car or lower the price of the car to cover the cost of the transmission. The same could be applied to misinformation in the church. If information is withheld that if known would of caused you to not join the church, this concealed information has caused loss of time, money, effort, and possibly loss of friends and family. Fine Billy, we'll do it your way. You can deduct 1% of your tithing for polygamy, 1% for horse bones and 1% for KJV translation errors, but 7% is my final offer.
Mortal Man Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Yet he expected them to "come, follow [him]," without months of study, How many of Jesus' converts were literate?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 How many of Jesus' converts were literate?That's scarcely relevant to my point, since illiterate people aren't necessarily stupid and can often be quite solid in their investigating -- but there's no reason to imagine that the early apostles were illiterates. Matthew the tax collector certainly wasn't. And Peter and his family probably weren't the impoverished country bumpkins of popular imagination; they seem to have been relatively prosperous commercial fishermen.
Eguzkitanedan Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 That's scarcely relevant to my point, since illiterate people aren't necessarily stupid and can often be quite solid in their investigating -- but there's no reason to imagine that the early apostles were illiterates. Matthew the tax collector certainly wasn't. And Peter and his family probably weren't the impoverished country bumpkins of popular imagination; they seem to have been relatively prosperous commercial fishermen.Also, it seems to me that I remember from one of my classics classes in college, that a professor mentioned many people were functionally literate in the Pax Romana period, and could keep accounts and stuff, but very few had the education necessary to read or write material like say Cicero and Demosthenes. Literacy wasn't to read books, but to read short business contracts.
AmorLibertas Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 As near as I can tell, as far as DCP is concerned, nothing, save a revelation from God would be sufficient to cause him to question his belief or faith in the doctrines of the LDS Church or his testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. being a prophet of God. I doubt even a confession in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that He did not see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. All kinds of rationalization would be summoned to explain why such a confession should not be taken at face value.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 As near as I can tell, as far as DCP is concerned, nothing, save a revelation from God would be sufficient to cause him to question his belief or faith in the doctrines of the LDS Church or his testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. being a prophet of God. I doubt even a confession in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that He did not see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. All kinds of rationalization would be summoned to explain why such a confession should not be taken at face value.Is it satisfying, in some way that eludes me, to construct idiotic straw men like this?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.