For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

Let's say.... you are a decent, law abiding citizen who minds his/her own business and does no harm to others, but who prefers not to attend church and chooses a path other than Mormon/LDS. Unrighteous? Unacceptable? Unworthy? A disappointment to parents? A failure?

LDS culture doesn't really allow for people to choose their own path (if different from LDS) and still be as respected and accepted as they would have otherwise been.

Depends on the laws doesn't it? There is a rite to manhood (a law if you will) among a tribe in the South American jungles where homocide of another tribe's member is required (Spartans did the same with helots). Laws by themselves do not dictate righteousness and one can feel sad for someone who does follow the law, it does not mean they are moral.

[Yamaha]

Depends on the laws doesn't it? There is a rite to manhood (a law if you will) among a tribe in the South American jungles where homocide of another tribe's member is required (Spartans did the same with helots). Laws by themselves do not dictate righteousness and one can feel sad for someone who does follow the law, it does not mean they are moral.

Notice the words "decent" and "does no harm to others" in my post, and then answer the question. And, assume we are talking about the U.S. and U.S. laws, and not some remote jungle in South America or elsewhere.

[ttribe]

Let's say.... you are a decent, law abiding citizen who minds his/her own business and does no harm to others, but who prefers not to attend church and chooses a path other than Mormon/LDS. Unrighteous? Unacceptable? Unworthy? A disappointment to parents? A failure?

LDS culture doesn't really allow for people to choose their own path (if different from LDS) and still be as respected and accepted as they would have otherwise been.

Now you are talking about "culture", not the Church itself. These are different avenues.

[Jeff K.]

Not harming others is not a moral position. Decent is subjective to what you think decent is. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, some would say that such a thing is decent (otherwise why allow it to be legal). Does it mean I won't feel sad for people involved in the legal business? Yes I will.

Same standards and issues apply.

[Yamaha]

Not harming others is not a moral position. Decent is subjective to what you think decent is. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, some would say that such a thing is decent (otherwise why allow it to be legal). Does it mean I won't feel sad for people involved in the legal business? Yes I will.

Same standards and issues apply.

Let's say... I have chosen a path that does not include prostitution, sexual perversion, illegal drugs, killing fellow tribe members, etc., and am an honest, law-abiding citizen who is kind, considerate, hard-working, helps the community, etc. Let's say I live the ten commandments and I don't drink or smoke.

But.. if I don't believe in the church anymore and choose to follow my own path, then I am considered unacceptable, "bad", a disappointment, unworthy... by my family, friends and ward members who are still believers?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I haven't read the bazillion posts in this thread, but allow me to answer the question in light of my current issues (and the experiences I've seen from some friends who had issues):

The problem doesn't seem to be one of "deception" or "hiding something". The problem is that we each build up an image of "The Church" and "Joseph Smith" in our minds, so when we say "The Church is True" or "Joseph Smith was a Prophet", we have an image of something in our minds. So the problem is that we are taught a certain version or image, but then we may learn that that "image" isn't accurate. Sometimes the differences are small, or we are able to correct the "image" without doing any damage to our testimony; but sometimes the adjustment is too great, and we find that the CHurch we thought was "true" is too different than we thought it was.

So the important thing would be to get an accurate "image". Of course, knowledge is always changing, but the Church should be careful to not give people an "image" that can't be accurate (like allowing kids to grow up with a romantic image of Joseph being monogamous). Even little ideas like the Church being the "fastest growing Church in the world" can become important parts of someone's image of the church, and while it isn't a dealbreaker to learn it isn't the case, it's an example of stuff that can happen.

Interesting thoughts, Grace, thanks.

[ttribe]

Let's say... I have chosen a path that does not include prostitution, sexual perversion, illegal drugs, killing fellow tribe members, etc., and am an honest, law-abiding citizen who is kind, considerate, hard-working, helps the community, etc. Let's say I live the ten commandments and I don't drink or smoke.

But.. if I don't believe in the church anymore and choose to follow my own path, then I am considered unacceptable, "bad", a disappointment, unworthy... by my family, friends and ward members who are still believers?

Are you looking for some type of blanket answer? If so, this is just silly. None of my siblings, nor my Dad (before he died) were active members of the Church; they "followed their own paths" so to speak and I've never had these thoughts or attitudes toward them.

[Jeff K.]

Lets say all kinds of things. Lets say the only thing you want to do is leave the family and that when you leave you won't be able to come back. Should the family celebrate such a thing? Should the family perhaps be disappointed? Feel that it has failed in preparing you?

If 'the family' feels the church is true and there is a celestial kingdom and that you have chosen to reject that, how are they supposed to feel?

You want your choice, but at the same time you want your choice validated. It isn't always going to be that way. Mine is the opposite. My family was disappointed when I did join the church, some relatives thought me less worthy, and others felt that I was condemning myself to hell.

I know my choice, and while they don't understand it perhaps, I still know what I chose and felt it right.

The 'family' may not understand why you would be more comfortable in a lesser kingdom (from their belief system) and they might feel they have done something wrong, and be disappointed (as would a shepard that has lost one of its sheep.

I think what you describe is not unique, but a natural occurrance no matter where you are or what you do. Choice will never mean outside validation.

[Yamaha]

Are you looking for some type of blanket answer? If so, this is just silly. None of my siblings, nor my Dad (before he died) were active members of the Church; they "followed their own paths" so to speak and I've never had these thoughts or attitudes toward them.

Did you hope that they would become active?

If so, why?

[Daniel Peterson]

Although much lipservice is given to "free agency", those who actually choose a different path are considered unrighteous, failures, unworthy, misguided or bad people. They are prayed about, pitied, looked down upon, and mourned over. Their parents, siblings, home teachers, bishops, and friends never give up on trying to get them to change their chosen path and return. Sometimes, their parents feel like failures, their spouses divorce them, their children are ashamed.

Belief in human agency doesn't entail relativism or indifference as to the choices that human agents make.

[ttribe]

Did you hope that they would become active?

If so, why?

What does that mean - "hope they would become active"?

[Deborah]

So the important thing would be to get an accurate "image".

Some great points. I think however, that people also have a tendency to form an image that has nothing to do with what they've been taught but with the preconceived notion of what ought to be.

For example people, particularly converts, have an image of prophets as some kind of perfect men. Therefore if they find out about Joseph Smith's flaws they start to questin whether he was really a prophet. The reality is that if they were familiar with the OT they would realize that Joseph's faults are pretty tame in comparison to some of those prophets of old.

[Yamaha]

The point I'm trying to make is that Mormons who stop believing in the church are looked down upon or considered "bad" by other members.

A member who obtains new information that causes them to doubt church claims may feel forced to choose between their LDS social networks of family, neighbors and friends - and searching for truth.

Regarding the OP - yes, I have felt deceived about aspects of church history etc.

If I would have learned about these things 25 years ago my life might have been different - because I have based my most important life decisions on the belief that the church is true.

[Jeff K.]

Bad or disappointed? You seem to presume the words have the same meaning, they don't.

[Daniel Peterson]

yes, I have felt deceived about aspects of church history etc.

Fortunately, you weren't.

[Deborah]

If I would have learned about these things 25 years ago my life might have been different - because I have based my most important life decisions on the belief that the church is true.

The church is true. The fact that you have chosen to believe otherwise doesn't change that. Besides can you really say that your life would have been any better if he had left the church 25 years ago? We always like to think about what might have been but I rather doubt things would have been what we think they might have been if we chose a different path. Our lives would be different but whether for better or worse is really all wishful thinking.

[Yamaha]

Fortunately, you weren't.

I feel that I have been. And there is a long list....

[Daniel Peterson]

I feel that I have been.

I'm aware of that.

Nevertheless, you weren't.

[Yamaha]

The church is true. The fact that you have chosen to believe otherwise doesn't change that. Besides can you really say that your life would have been any better if he had left the church 25 years ago? We always like to think about what might have been but I rather doubt things would have been what we think they might have been if we chose a different path. Our lives would be different but whether for better or worse is really all wishful thinking.

Yes - one can never go back an there is really no point in thinking about what might have been. And I have no clue if things would have turned out better or worse than they have...Still....

I'm aware of that.Nevertheless, you weren't.

About that long list...

[LifeOnaPlate]

About that long list...

I have somewhat to say. If I stop to think about my brief couple of years on our little planet earth I marvel at the vast amount of time I have wasted and continue to waste. That being said, consider the following:

In discussions about history and the Church's alleged "suppression" of historical "facts" I wonder why the critics think in-depth analysis of historical events would maintain the interest of the average Church member, or even provide anything substantial to their everyday lives. Why don't we spend more time reading, thinking, growing? I love to read and often carry a book. Almost every day someone will approach me and ask "are you reading something for school?" "Nope, just reading some stuff." "What is it?" "It's such-and-such." "Oh. Cool." The conversation ends, never to be resumed. Sometimes a suspicious look or skeptical tone is involved.

Perhaps the immediacy of life stops introspection. The problem is, most people don't care to wonder about sense perception, the nature of reality, historical context, and other philosophical things because those things aren't going to fill their stomachs or make sure the car payment makes it in on time or that little Johnny gets a better math grade. These things aren't easily entertaining for many, either; they require effort. And who has the time? (I suspect we don't really "have" time at all, we make time. But that is a discussion for another thread.)

This probationary state of life harasses us with the "tyranny of the now," and when people get tired they generally want to escape and relax rather than sit and study and seek and possibly confuse themselves. (I am reminded of an apocryphal story of Abraham who was taken up and shown the workings of vast universes; he fell on his face in terror and asked to be taken back to the solid ground.) This tyranny is OK with me; while Mormons assert we are here to gain knowledge, and that the glory of God is intelligence, we realize that day-to-day acts of kindness are more important than understanding the theory of relativity or the age of the earth.

LDS scholar James Allen laments in his review of Grant Palmer's Insiders View that Palmer is largely correct in saying too often the "rank-and-file" of the Church do not pay a lot of attention to historical or philosophical scholarship generated by believing members of the Church. He points out that these more in-depth analysis are not likely to see the light of day in an average Sunday school class. For one thing, the Church is a group of eclectic individuals on different levels of spirituality and intellectuality. Someone has suggested that the Church make a higher and lower tiered Sunday school structure (different from the basic new member class and Sunday school.) This, however, robs the members of the opportunity to be humble, or to be stretched, or may set up a hierarchy of smart kids vs. the short bus folk. Allen points out that the best-selling books are crime novels, cookbooks, and financial help books. I would add the smattering of tacky business models and motivational platitude tomes. Mormons seem to be just as interested in this stuff, which may have its place, but often displaces what I might see as more important.

Some critics of the Church see Church members as wearing blinders and not being aware of the dirty secrets behind Mormonism. I don't buy into this stereotype of the "blind faith, blinders wearing Mormon." I believe many members of the Church know enough about the Church to encourage their participation, foster thought, and increase their service to others, and they receive the fruits of those behaviors which makes Mormonism a vital and real, a "true" aspect of the lives. But we members are still plagued by the same distractions facing other people; crappy TV programs, commercials, trite music, excessive sport interests, body worship, etc. There are even many academics who seem too caught up in studying to notice that their neighbor has hands which hang down and need lifting.

Still, it is difficult to find people who want to talk about the things we talk about on the board here away from the net. We can't spend a bunch of time pontificating on the vast eternities, and even sometimes when we do we are just stroking egos or coming up with severely flawed theories and constructs.

How do you decide where to spend your time, what to read, who to listen to, what your personal responsibility is?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

QUOTE(Yamaha @ Apr 2 2009, 04:29 PM)

I feel that I have been.

I'm aware of that.

Nevertheless, you weren't.

About that long list...

No you weren't decieved about church history.

[Gervin]

Fortunately, you weren't.

the deception that keeps on givin'

[Zakuska]

How can one be Decieved by church History if one has never read Church History to begin with?

[ttribe]

the deception that keeps on givin'

Was that an accusation?

[Deborah]

How do you decide where to spend your time, what to read, who to listen to, what your personal responsibility is?

I couldn't agree with you more. There was a time when I wasn't at all interested in these things. I knew about some of the anti stuff but it just wasn't important to research it further. I've become more interested in later years just because I don't have all those distractions teenagers and young families have. I do not think the everyday members of the church are as ignorant as the critics like to depict; they just aren't interested in the same things the critics seem to find critical. It's hard to be overly concerned about the theories on when Joseph told Emma, etc when they are busy living their lives and seeing the fruits of the gospel just in doing what they do every day.

How can one be Decieved by church History if one has never read Church History to begin with?