For those who felt deceived

[why me]

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.

I don't think that it would make that much difference. Someone can always claim a piece of meat that they should have been taught but weren't. And then the excuse to leave the lds church would appear. And so, most likely, the church would need to publish a book of over a thousand pages to include everything that most would agree should be in the book. And even then, someone would find something to be shocked by that was not in the book.

But here is a fact. Regardless of what has been left out, it does not change the testimonies of the 11 witnesses and forebearance of Emma during her marriage to Joseph. The story rests with the first vision and the book of mormon. And regardless of what may be found in church history, nothing so far has exposed the book as a fraud. Emma died still believing that her husband was a prophet and believed in the book of mormon. What did she know that we don't?

[why me]

BTW, this very phenomenon - that our brains seemed wire to preserve our pre-existing beliefs/worldviews even at the cost of helpfully editing information in our behalf, often causes me distress in terms of the possible future of mankind. I also think that this phenomenon is why the advent of the scientific process as well as the rules of logic were so significant in changing the course of history. These processes finally offered a manner in which we could make headway in controlling and minimizing the impact of this tendency.

Actually, I think that it is even more simple: People build up an image and when they find information that may not support the image, they become disillusioned and leave. End of story. In church terms it becomes rather unfortunate since nothing has proven JS to be a liar in terms of the book of mormon. Nor has anything proven the witnesses to be a liar nor has it proven Sidney or Emma to be liars. The book of mormon and its witnesses still churn out what they claimed.

[beastie]

Actually, I think that it is even more simple: People build up an image and when they find information that may not support the image, they become disillusioned and leave. End of story. In church terms it becomes rather unfortunate since nothing has proven JS to be a liar in terms of the book of mormon. Nor has anything proven the witnesses to be a liar nor has it proven Sidney or Emma to be liars. The book of mormon and its witnesses still churn out what they claimed.

I assure you that this is a reality construct that may seem valid to you, but with which many other people would strongly disagree - including me. As one example, I think that only people who already have a spiritual testimony of the BoM would think that the BoM sounds like an ancient Mesoamerican text, versus sounding like a nineteenth century text. I think it takes a pre-existing worldview that is demanding to be preserved to really think the BoM sounds like anything but a text written by a nineteenth century Christian American.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems to me that we don't really know how much Christ told his potential followers. The scriptures are sketchy, there may have been much more said than was recorded-- of course there was more said.

And this is restricted for some reason to the NT and doesn't apply to Joseph Smith? Further, that the apostles are depicted as having not understood or anticipated certain things is not evidence that they did not understand or expect certain things?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would be most ungrateful if I did not take a moment to express my personal testimony of the truth of honor's words. ;)Well said. Well said. BTW, this very phenomenon - that our brains seemed wire to preserve our pre-existing beliefs/worldviews even at the cost of helpfully editing information in our behalf, often causes me distress in terms of the possible future of mankind. I also think that this phenomenon is why the advent of the scientific process as well as the rules of logic were so significant in changing the course of history. These processes finally offered a manner in which we could make headway in controlling and minimizing the impact of this tendency.

Your new faith is interesting, but still plagued by the same methodological problems you seem to feel only loom large for religion.

I assure you that this is a reality construct that may seem valid to you, but with which many other people would strongly disagree - including me. As one example, I think that only people who already have a spiritual testimony of the BoM would think that the BoM sounds like an ancient Mesoamerican text, versus sounding like a nineteenth century text. I think it takes a pre-existing worldview that is demanding to be preserved to really think the BoM sounds like anything but a text written by a nineteenth century Christian American.

I assure you that this is a reality construct that may seem valid to you, but with which many other people would strongly disagree - including me.

[beastie]

I assure you that this is a reality construct that may seem valid to you, but with which many other people would strongly disagree - including me.

Obviously.

Your new faith is interesting, but still plagued by the same methodological problems you seem to feel only loom large for religion.

Ignoring the "new faith" comment, obviously any human endeavor is still going to be plagued by these methodological problems. However, science/logic has at least made an attempt to develop a method by which these problems can be minimized or neutered. Does religion do that?

[why me]

I assure you that this is a reality construct that may seem valid to you, but with which many other people would strongly disagree - including me. As one example, I think that only people who already have a spiritual testimony of the BoM would think that the BoM sounds like an ancient Mesoamerican text, versus sounding like a nineteenth century text. I think it takes a pre-existing worldview that is demanding to be preserved to really think the BoM sounds like anything but a text written by a nineteenth century Christian American.

How something may sound to you does not prove it false. As you know, on the other board, there have been battles about authorship between Dale and Dan. Both did not defeat the other with evidence or logic. Next, there has been a battle over book of mormon authorship with Dale still claiming that Sidney wrote the book. Again, page after page did not prove Dale correct. The book has not been proven false by facts or evidence because no one has contructed a viable alternative to authorship with conclusive proof. Because no conclusive proof exists as of this day.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Obviously.

Ignoring the "new faith" comment, obviously any human endeavor is still going to be plagued by these methodological problems. However, science/logic has at least made an attempt to develop a method by which these problems can be minimized or neutered. Does religion do that?

Apparently not to the standards of your newfound faith.

[Honorentheos]

No comment.

Don't be so quick to squawk and then slip one below the belt yourself, Dr. P. It's ungentlemanly.

I was writing to Teancum, who, if I'm not mistaken, is a believer in Christ.

Christ, according to most Christians, had a very clear idea of what was going to happen, both to himself and to his disciples. Yet he didn't disclose it to them. He knew that certain doctrines would arise in Christianity. At their conversion they had no idea about such things. They committed themselves to him, and ultimately to martyrs' deaths, knowing essentially nothing, simply obeying the command to "follow" him.

If Mormon leaders can be faulted for failure to fully disclose everything, and for a failure to require or encourage a long period of study and investigation before commitment, so can Jesus Christ. (He offered the command "Come, follow me." That's all. There weren't even any discussions or lesson plans.) For a believing Christian, though, condemning Christ might be more than a little bit problematic.

If P, then Q.

If you don't want Q, don't assert P.

P = not disclosing everything that is to come or offering all of the doctrines that will be binding on the individual that they will have to practice, or beliefs that they may even die for.

Q = not disclosing things that happened in the past that may reflect poorly on the church that a member does not need to know for their salvation, evidenced by the fact it is not deemed necessary for standard church manuals to included them.

P is not equal to Q.

[Honorentheos]

I make the assessment of what I think based on the fact that I'm the one who thinks what I think. That gives me unique access to what I think.

Actually, this comment is interesting in that is it right and wrong for everyone as well.

We all have unique access to what we are thinking, yes.

But we are all incapable, by definition, of viewing how this information is being influenced by our own biases objectively. You have to rely on other people to assess how what you are saying/doing conforms with how you think it is being conveyed. And also if it is accurate to how others are sensing the world around them as well.

AmorLibertas may not know what it would take for you to leave the church, but neither do you really. I don't know right now what it would take for me to believe that the church is true again. From where I am sitting, it would take a lot of things as they seem to be to come crashing down. Biology, geology, archeology, psychology, physics (the mormon god defies current physics) - for me it goes way beyond the theology.

[Deborah]

It appears to me that choice people make in what materials they read or study to find out about the history determines whether they stay active or leave. I really did try to read Brodie's book years ago and just couldn't get through the first chapter. I did read Brigham Young at Home by one of his daughters and that helped shape my view of polygamy to a more positive note. When I wanted to learn more about Joseph Smith I listened to Truman Madsen's lectures or other church scholars who had researched journals and other works in the archives. To learn about his character I read the testimonies of those who know him best such as Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, not stuff written by those who lived after his time and never knew him personally.

I think our choice of what we read and accept reflects the bias we already have and the direction we have already chosen to go and we are just looking for support for either choice.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 10:14 AM

I think our choice of what we read and accept reflects the bias we already have and the direction we have already chosen to go and we are just looking for support for either choice.

I think you are right. Those who chose to read only material in favor of the Church generally have already made up their minds and are only looking for material to support their choice. The same holds true for those who only want to read material not in favor of the church. The more unbiased tend to want to read from both sides to get the best understanding before making any decisions on what they think is correct or incorrect.

[why me]

I think our choice of what we read and accept reflects the bias we already have and the direction we have already chosen to go and we are just looking for support for either choice.

I can agree with this up to a point. However, there are probably many lds out there that never have thought to think outside the box and when whatever is outside the box comes to them, they are shocked or dismayed. It is here that sympathy needs to be shown. Most members go through life trying to live the commandments and attend church meetings. For many, independent research just doesn't come into the mind. Instead, they mainly work, and raise a family, hold family home evenings, do their home or visiting teaching, practice their callings and give talks. Nothing more needs to be done it would seem for many.

Now that being said, those that find 'negative' information should be aware that the lds church has not been proved false, or that the witnesses have been proven to have lied or that JS lied about the book of mormon. All still stands as is. Just the imperfections of an imperfect world comes into play more as past leaders are seen to be just plainly human with imperfections, as we all are.

[Deborah]

The more unbiased tend to want to read from both sides to get the best understanding before making any decisions on what they think is correct or incorrect.

Except that I don't see how reading something from someone you know has an axe would be of any benefit in discerning truth. I'd rather read from those who have studied and remained faithful. I don't think there is a way to be unbiased about religion and someone who wants to appear unbiased and open minded has already made their choice as well. Now I know there are scholars who read many works in order to comment or critique, but I also think they have a background to be able to look at some of the negative with a more knowledgeable eye. I am not a scholar but I love the works of those who are; nevertheless even the most "objective" work already has an innate bias toward belief or non-belief.

[Deborah]

For many, independent research just doesn't come into the mind. Instead, they mainly work, and raise a family, hold family home evenings, do their home or visiting teaching, practice their callings and give talks. Nothing more needs to be done it would seem for many.

I agree, and I think they really have no interest in the historical aspects. History is never among the more popular subjects in school.

[Deborah]

I would like to clarify on a personal note that I have read enough of the arguments against the church to know that they are not compelling enough to get further into. Like Why Me said nothing has been "proven" to be false. Also how one perceives prophets depends on one's understanding of what a prophet is, and the OT is full of prophets who illustrate that these are ordinary men given extraordinary power and authority and whatever their shortcomings they are in the refiner's fire of God and it is to him thay they are accountable.

[Bender]

Except that I don't see how reading something from someone you know has an axe would be of any benefit in discerning truth. I'd rather read from those who have studied and remained faithful. I don't think there is a way to be unbiased about religion and someone who wants to appear unbiased and open minded has already made their choice as well. Now I know there are scholars who read many works in order to comment or critique, but I also think they have a background to be able to look at some of the negative with a more knowledgeable eye. I am not a scholar but I love the works of those who are; nevertheless even the most "objective" work already has an innate bias toward belief or non-belief.

I think you are just showing you are in the camp that has already made your choice and only want material that will back up what you already want to believe. We may not be able to become 100% unbiased, but some can be fairly close, while others can make steps to try in minimize that bias. I had to try and minimize my bias in favor of the church when evaluating information both for and against the church. The most important step was first realizing I didn't really know for sure either way.

[Deborah]

The most important step was first realizing I didn't really know for sure either way.

I guess that's the difference. I did know and I know some will say how can you know, blah, blah, blah. But to refute that first confirmation of the church would be to refute the fact that I breathe and know I exist, it is that certain. Does that mean doubts haven't crept in? By no means. I've had my periods of questioning and always it is that first moment that has kept me going until I worked through them.

[Bender]

I guess that's the difference. I did know and I know some will say how can you know, blah, blah, blah. But to refute that first confirmation of the church would be to refute the fact that I breathe and know I exist, it is that certain. Does that mean doubts haven't crept in? By no means. I've had my periods of questioning and always it is that first moment that has kept me going until I worked through them.

I think That type of certainty is not possible. I thought I knew as well. Until I could realize I didn't indeed know I couldn't really deal with my bias in favor of the church. It's not about refuting our first confirmation or our second, third, etc or any other spiritual or maybe even physical experiences. It's understanding that our interpretations of them may not be accurate.

[Honorentheos]

I think That type of certainty is not possible. I thought I knew as well. Until I could realize I didn't indeed know I couldn't really deal with my bias in favor of the church. It's not about refuting our first confirmation or our second, third, etc or any other spiritual or maybe even physical experiences. It's understanding that our interpretations of them may not be accurate.

This reflects my experience as well. My head left the church long before my heart, and I have known many, many former members who I have spoken with since I have left who say that coming to understand the spiritual witness of the church was the most complicated part of making sense of their LDS heritage.

I also know a number of members who hold to this in times of crisis to get them through. It's interesting.

It would be interesting to study what the real tipping point is that influences why some hold to this while others allow it to be questioned. I mean, outside of the a priori beliefs we have of why people do so. (i.e.- sin, wanting to get out of the LDS lifestyle, or from a critics view finally waking up to reality. It seems so much more complex than any of these explanations really offer though they probably play a part)

In my memory of my own experience I felt that it had to do with integrity. The line from President Benson's Pride talk, in the voice of President Hinkley, saying "The proud fear the judgment of man over God's judgment" would come to mind when I would feel like just letting it be. But I am also sure this is too simple as well. It took too long to be so simple, and part of it took having a friend (active member though skeptical in many ways) tell me that I seemed to want someone to give me the answers when I already knew them which was a kind of wake-up call for me.

Edited to add - the other challenge is that presented by the weavers in the emperor's new clothes. Do we set up social constructs whereby we make it difficult to say the emperor is naked if he appears so? The phrase, "If the emperor appears to be naked, he probably is" came to mind back then often as well. I know this reflects my own current bias, but might as well get it out there for discussion.

[Honorentheos]

Except that I don't see how reading something from someone you know has an axe would be of any benefit in discerning truth. I'd rather read from those who have studied and remained faithful. I don't think there is a way to be unbiased about religion and someone who wants to appear unbiased and open minded has already made their choice as well. Now I know there are scholars who read many works in order to comment or critique, but I also think they have a background to be able to look at some of the negative with a more knowledgeable eye. I am not a scholar but I love the works of those who are; nevertheless even the most "objective" work already has an innate bias toward belief or non-belief.

If I may, I suggest you have found the answer to your question in the OP -

Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. 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.

[talisyn]

All the thousands of books out in the world for or against the LDS Church will never have the power to convert people to the gospel as the Book of Mormon will. My fellow Saints, we can debate and argue all day long but the time eventually comes where we realize the ultimate responsibility for the former LDS posters on this thread resides in them. They must come to their own understanding of their place in this universe and in God's plan. They have all the information needed to make a righteous decision. It's time we left them to it. Adieu

[Teancum]

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.

Well as noted there are a few things at work with the biblical account. One, it was an extraordinary situation and two, we really don't have a lot of the detail. And three, we do not know how accurate the accounts we have in the NT really are.

[Deborah]

I think That type of certainty is not possible.

I disagree of course. I have had conversations with myself about how ridiculous it is God would choose an unschooled farmboy as prophet; but then there is David. It's ridiculous that a book would be on gold plates; but we have since found evidence of other records on metal plates. It's awful that men would have more than one wife; then the prophets of old must be awful. Joseph was a con man and a deceiver; yet he had men willing to go with him to prison and even take his place. I really have tried to see this from the anti view but there is too much in favor of it being true and most of all I can't get around the doctrine. The nature of God, temples, work for the dead, the purpose of man, a God who still has communion with his people through prophets. These are things that are so profoundly intertwined in scriptures and that make so much sense if God is both just and merciful that the man who brought them to the world has got to be more than a brilliant charlatan. I cannot interpret what I know any other way and I have on an intellectual basis tried just to see where it would go.

[Bender]

I disagree of course. I have had conversations with myself about how ridiculous it is God would choose an unschooled farmboy as prophet; but then there is David. It's ridiculous that a book would be on gold plates; but we have since found evidence of other records on metal plates. It's awful that men would have more than one wife; then the prophets of old must be awful. Joseph was a con man and a deceiver; yet he had men willing to go with him to prison and even take his place. I really have tried to see this from the anti view but there is too much in favor of it being true and most of all I can't get around the doctrine. The nature of God, temples, work for the dead, the purpose of man, a God who still has communion with his people through prophets. These are things that are so profoundly intertwined in scriptures and that make so much sense if God is both just and merciful that the man who brought them to the world has got to be more than a brilliant charlatan. I cannot interpret what I know any other way and I have on an intellectual basis tried just to see where it would go.

I think this is just showing again that you have already made your choice before looking at both sides and only want to read material you view as positive to the church. This type of bias which I had at one time does not allow one to evaluate either side in a fair manner. I again do not think one can know anything with absolute certainty. To say I know something is true like God exists, I would have to have an experience like Joseph and other individuals in other belief systems have claimed.