Warts and all kind of history

[Jason]

Here:

http://www.healthline.com/galeimage?conten...=eph_02_img0083

According to the article, this table uses data from English parrishes only. It's quite likely that the demographics were very different in America at that time.

http://www.answers.com/marriage&r=67

I see nothing about the common age of marriage in 19th century America on this web page.

It does discuss age of marriage in Europe from the 15th to 18th century (mid-teens for women - 14-16 or so), and mentions that the legal marriage age in the 1800s in the US was as low as 12 for women.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socde...how/table01.xls

That supports your modern U.S. figures, but again has nothing to say about the 1800s.

[rameumptom]

Do you have evidence to support this?

From what I can see the average age for marriage in the 1800's was 28 years for a man and 24 years for a woman.

Currently in the United States: 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women, 26.1 final average.

It does seem coparable despite your claim.

And your evidence doesn't show what the average marriage age was for people on the frontier. It is likely that women were married earlier in Kentucky and western Missouri than in Boston during the 19th century. Why? Because there was less education available, meaning children became adults quicker; and because there were few hospitals, meaning people died younger (especially in child birth), and so married younger.

You'll find that the rate of marrying one's first cousin in the frontier of America was probably much higher than in Europe or eastern USA, too. Why? Because people were spread out, and tended to meet up only with family.

[searchinguy]

However, for those who have left in light of discovered "problems", why did it end there? In other words, did you approach the potential problems with the same eye of faith and open mind with which you initially approached mormonism? Did you take the time to "discover" a response?

I haven't left but do take issue with portions of history and doctrine. I try to be open minded and am continuing to search for my answers in a thoughtful way. Truth be told that's why I come to this site. I am looking at all views in my effort to figure it out.

why did it end there?

I have invested more time in researching Mormon history an origins this go round than I have at other time. Not all of us are like Dr. Peterson and felt supported in a full study of the LDS faith. My LDS upbringing in CA was much different in that I was oblivious to many of what I now see as issues. When I became aware of them on my mission and after I was discouraged from looking into themâ??especially from non-approved sources. So "it ended there" or I shelved the issues for a long time. I don't intend to againâ?? at least until I have a reasonable enough hold on the history to come to an informed conclusion about some things.

The internet, while certainly a tool for discovering the "problems" is also a tool for finding the solutions.

Sure. Interestingly for some they are the same thingâ?? meaning, the discovery of problems is a step in finding "a solution" for some. For me, some of the information has made things seem like less of an issue than before, but there are many "solutions" that don't work for me.

If nothing else I am less black and white in my thinking but wonder if that has helped my relationship with Mormonismâ?? or hurt it.

[Tarski]

Still refusing to answer my question I see. Do you really think these tactics of distraction are working?

It is often unwise to answer questions that come with dubious premises. (the old wife beating example)

Do you realize how many questions I have asked, to say Dan, for example, that were systematically ignored? They were often very good questions too. Live with it.

[JNclone]

PS Ever hear "Confucius says" [K'ung fu tzu yueh in Wade-Giles, or Kong fu zi yue in Pinyin] jokes? You understand the concept of joke, right?

Yes, I've heard those jokes.

To many Chinese people, they are about as funny and appropriate as "Jesus says" jokes told by Chinese people would be to you.

When asked how to say "Confucius says" in Literary Chinese, your informant may well say something that could be romanized in pinyin as Kong fu zi yue. Can you however show an example of that particular expression occurring in any ancient Chinese text? I think you will find you can't. In scholarship one often finds that reverse engineering leads one astray, does one not?

Or was that another joke?

[Scott26.2]

I haven't left but do take issue with portions of history and doctrine. I try to be open minded and am continuing to search for my answers in a thoughtful way. Truth be told that's why I come to this site. I am looking at all views in my effort to figure it out.

I think that's the key right there. To search for truth in an open-minded, thoughtful way. For so many who become cynical and leave the church after enjoying full-fellowship, I often wonder if they approached the "problems" of history or doctrine in such a way? How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized?

Scott26.2

[No Touch]

Do you have evidence to support this?

From what I can see the average age for marriage in the 1800's was 28 years for a man and 24 years for a woman.

Currently in the United States: 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women, 26.1 final average.

It does seem coparable despite your claim.

I looked at your references (perhaps not thoroughly, but I did go through) and didn't see any of the numbers you presented. Your current numbers were close, but not even exactly the same as those from that census spreadsheet. So if you could point me to where you got your 1800s average, I'd like to take a harder look.

But even if I accept those numbers, I wouldd point out that marriage licenses weren't generally required in the US in the 1800s, and that common law marriage was acceptable, though in most cases probably not well documented. Those portions of the population more apt to marry younger were probably less apt I think to document it. Not scientific at all, but worth considering I think. I would also say that modern numbers are skewed lower by the amount of people who do not marry at all.

Beyond that, I don't think the fact that the legal age for marriage with parental consent in most of the US was in 12-14 range can be characterized as irrelevant. Averages are averages, and no one I suggesting that everyone got married so young, but heck, my wife's grandmother was married at 14 and had her first child at 16. If everyone agreed 100-200 years ago that a 14 year old getting married was so scandalous and unacceptable then why did the laws allow them to marry? The fact is that regardless of whether or not it was/is common, it was socially acceptable, in the same way that a 19 year old marrying a 21 year old may not be common in the modern US, but it happens, it's legal, and it is socially acceptable.

[Tarski]

PS Ever hear "Confucius says" [K'ung fu tzu yueh in Wade-Giles, or Kong fu zi yue in Pinyin] jokes? You understand the concept of joke, right?

Uh huh.

This coming from you? Referring to the difference between your approach to religion and mine as a "difference in schools of thought" was supposed to be cute and playful (purposefully). I am sorry I did not use scare quotes for you. You didn't catch on and triumphantly started in with misguided, utter pedantry.

If I were anything at all like you, I would go on and on and on about your Confucius slip up and never accept the idea that it was a joke. Already, there are those who are doubting that it was a joke. But, I'm not like you in this regard. I can let the tiny thing pass and accept the clarification. You can't.

You never accept clarification, your first incorrect impression sticks and you become incorrigible.

Many times you have said you were "through with" me. I think the opposite is true. You're a bit fixated on this.

If you don't want to play nice, if you want to continue interpreting what I say in as uncharitable way as possible, there is nothing I can do about it.

Even after what amounts to an apology and encouragement to Kerry, you are gnashing your teeth.

[ttribe]

Uh huh.

This coming from you? Referring to the difference between your approach to religion and mine as a "difference in schools of thought" was supposed to be cute and playful (purposefully). I am sorry I did not use scare quotes for you. You didn't catch on and triumphantly started in with misguided, utter pedantry.

If I were anything at all like you, I would go on and on and on about your Confucius slip up and never accept the idea that it was a joke. Already, there are those who are doubting that it was a joke. But, I'm not like you in this regard. I can let the tiny thing pass and accept the clarification. You can't.

You never accept clarification, your first incorrect impression sticks and you become incorrigible.

Many times you have said you were "through with" me. I think the opposite is true. You're a bit fixated on this.

If you don't want to play nice, if you want to continue interpreting what I say in as uncharitable way as possible, there is nothing I can do about it.

Even after what amounts to an apology and encouragement to Kerry, you are gnashing your teeth.

Gentlemen...ever heard of the PM function?

[Deborah]

How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized?

This is what I've been asking, but apparently the answer is they change the interpretation of what they thought they once knew.

There has been discussion which seems to assume if a faithful member doesn't thoroughly study every detail of the anti-Mormon literature they really aren't enlightened enough to make an "unbiased" decision about the church's claims. However, I doubt by the same token they have given as much time and thought to all the positive information out there that explains or at least questions the validity of the anti claims.

Anti-Mormon literature is often very hate filled and negative. Dwelling too much on it will remove whatever spirit one might have left. It is sufficient to know the arguments and one can easily peruse the anti stuff to get this. Just as I don't like to be around negative people, because they bring others down, so I don't like to dwell on negative and hateful rhetoric. That's not naive, it's not unenlightened; it's just plain common sense.

Most faithful LDS have been confronted by doubts, loss of faith, and times of great weakness. If they haven't been they will be. They have a choice. They can fill their minds with those things which are dark and negative or those things which bring light and lift up. What they choose to dwell on will determine what direction they go. Despite all the arguments, the evidence or the questions that remain unanswered, it all comes down to what the Spirit reveals. those who can't accept the Spirit will find ways to rationalize and change the evidence of past experience to fit their current paradigm. I find it very sad that some will throw out all the beauty they once found and replace it with ugliness which is of their own creation and interpretation.

[searchinguy]

I think that's the key right there. To search for truth in an open-minded, thoughtful way. For so many who become cynical and leave the church after enjoying full-fellowship, I often wonder if they approached the "problems" of history or doctrine in such a way?

Sure. An open mind is required for learning to take palce. I actually do understand why people sometimes feel betrayed and become cynical (and have felt those feelings as well) but they can be counterproductiveâ?? just as feeling defensive and attacking questioners can be. Anyway, I've tried to remain open.

How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized?

If in your method of determining truth, feelings and spiritual impressions always trump empirical stuffâ?? then it changes nothing. If, like me, you find it hard to believe in somethingâ?? however good it may seemsâ?? when the evidence seems points somewhere else, then new information can make a big difference.

Also I'm assuming when you say "you", you are referring generally to anyone's experiences. Specifically for me, when I was baptized at eight I didn't know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I was baptized because I was taught it was the right thing to do and would please God. Even if I had I "known" JS was a prophet at that young age I would've found it necessary to re-address the issue later, as I have, as an adolescent and again as an adult.

if a faithful member doesn't thoroughly study every detail of the anti-Mormon literature they really aren't enlightened enough to make an "unbiased" decision about the church's claims.

I don't know what is true for other members. I do know that now that I am aware of certain discrepancies I need to resolve them the best I can. For me putting things on the shelf comes after my best attempt to get at the truth.

ugliness which is of their own creation and interpretation.

We all, as you put it, "make a..... decision about the church's claims." I don't really think of these conclusions as ugliness but rather finding the way that makes most senseâ??

[Daniel Peterson]

Bill, I'm reliably informed that you're being humiliated here, and that your unbelievable blunder -- or was it an unspeakable, character-defining offense? -- about Confucius is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, or something like that, casting doubt on everything you've ever written.

I'm not making this up.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I'm reliably informed that you're being humiliated here, and that your unbelievable blunder -- or was it an unspeakable, character-defining offense? -- about Confucius is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, or something like that, casting doubt on everything you've ever written.

I'm not making this up.

Confucius did indeed say: "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones!" It was George Confucius I was talking about; a kid I knew in High School.

Just another proof that there are more horses asses than horses in the world.

[Tarski]

Confucius did indeed say: "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones!" It was George Confucius I was talking about; a kid I knew in High School.

George Confucius!

Oh the hilarity. I can hardly breath.

whew!

[e=mc2]

Confucius did indeed say: "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones!" It was George Confucius I was talking about; a kid I knew in High School.

Just another proof that there are more horses asses than horses in the world.

Bill...... cheer up man...... I don't doubt everything you've written since Tarski is whoopin yer butt...... I still like the Solomon's Temple book!

[e=mc2]

Bill...... cheer up man...... I don't doubt everything you've written since Tarski is whoopin yer butt...... I still like the Solomon's Temple book!

Ya know what Bill....... I just went and read the *real* scholars board, and sure enough, Dan is right, you have been completely without question totally like dismantled, gutted and thawed. Yer toast chump! They thrashed you. You have no authority anymore over there.....oh wait......I guess you enver did over there come ta think of it.....

Soooooooooooo, I take it back, I now no longer like yer Solomon book, even though it was the best darn book ever written on the subject. I can no longer ignore the astonishing logical analysis performed against you on behalf of the half baked, er I mean no More Mormons over on that other board that cannot be named....... I'm sorry bruthuh, they have already attended your funeral over there. You no longer even exist dude. Ain't that kinda nice though? No more worries and bother dealing with idiotic arguments and ridiculous logic? Ya gotta admit man, heaven is a *great* place! Hope yer enjoyin the Celestial Sun. I'll be missin ya. I was hopin you would be around longer to write more books like the Solomon's Temple. Send us a letter from heaven every now and again will ya?

[e=mc2]

Ya know what Bill....... I just went and read the *real* scholars board, and sure enough, Dan is right, you have been completely without question totally like dismantled, gutted and thawed. Yer toast chump! They thrashed you. You have no authority anymore over there.....oh wait......I guess you enver did over there come ta think of it.....

Soooooooooooo, I take it back, I now no longer like yer Solomon book, even though it was the best darn book ever written on the subject. I can no longer ignore the astonishing logical analysis performed against you on behalf of the half baked, er I mean no More Mormons over on that other board that cannot be named....... I'm sorry bruthuh, they have already attended your funeral over there. You no longer even exist dude. Ain't that kinda nice though? No more worries and bother dealing with idiotic arguments and ridiculous logic? Ya gotta admit man, heaven is a *great* place! Hope yer enjoyin the Celestial Sun. I'll be missin ya. I was hopin you would be around longer to write more books like the Solomon's Temple. Send us a letter from heaven every now and again will ya?

HEY BILL! My beloeved brother! I have some very interesting news for you. On that other board that can't be named, I am seeing how Tarski is being taken to the woodshed by Dartgagmymom, or whoever (Kevin Graham), who is showing Tarski how very little he knows about *anything* except Mathematics! LOL! Apparently even Einstein is too much for Tarski to handle....... so see? You ain't so far off or bad for telling Tarski to stick with math and shut up about anything else. Graham is also telling him that!

[Bill Hamblin]

Ya know what Bill....... I just went and read the *real* scholars board, and sure enough, Dan is right, you have been completely without question totally like dismantled, gutted and thawed. Yer toast chump! They thrashed you. You have no authority anymore over there.....oh wait......I guess you enver did over there come ta think of it.....

Soooooooooooo, I take it back, I now no longer like yer Solomon book, even though it was the best darn book ever written on the subject. I can no longer ignore the astonishing logical analysis performed against you on behalf of the half baked, er I mean no More Mormons over on that other board that cannot be named....... I'm sorry bruthuh, they have already attended your funeral over there. You no longer even exist dude. Ain't that kinda nice though? No more worries and bother dealing with idiotic arguments and ridiculous logic? Ya gotta admit man, heaven is a *great* place! Hope yer enjoyin the Celestial Sun. I'll be missin ya. I was hopin you would be around longer to write more books like the Solomon's Temple. Send us a letter from heaven every now and again will ya?

What are you doing over there, Kerry? I thought they let you out of the insane asylum?!?!?

Zǐ Yuē: "W

[Bill Hamblin]

HEY BILL! My beloeved brother! I have some very interesting news for you. On that other board that can't be named, I am seeing how Tarski is being taken to the woodshed by Dartgagmymom, or whoever (Kevin Graham), who is showing Tarski how very little he knows about *anything* except Mathematics! LOL! Apparently even Einstein is too much for Tarski to handle....... so see? You ain't so far off or bad for telling Tarski to stick with math and shut up about anything else. Graham is also telling him that!

The blind leading the blind?!

[e=mc2]

The blind leading the blind?!

Hey careful there palsy......even Euler the ***great*** mathematician went blind. Don't encourage Tarski.....

[Bill Hamblin]

Hey careful there palsy......even Euler the ***great*** mathematician went blind. Don't encourage Tarski.....

I would never encourage Tarski. Let him post on that board to his heart's content.

Lord bless and keep Tarski ... far away from us.

[Tarski]

Apparently even Einstein is too much for Tarski to handle....... so see?

You really believe that? Which relevant fact about Einstein do you think I need to be schooled on?

You ain't so far off or bad for telling Tarski to stick with math and shut up about anything else. Graham is also telling him that!

That's the same Kevin Graham that is certain the Gee and Nibley play games (and are wrong about the BoA) and the same Kevin Graham who thinks that Brent MetCalfe routinely kicks butts here. He even claims that Gee lies.

Kevin will love this.

It's funny how, for you two, the answer to the question of who is kicking whose butt, is largely a matter of figuring out who you wish would be getting their butt kicked.

Kevin is all bluster on the Einstein thing and much else. Have you any idea what he (Kevin) believes about God? What great point did he make?

The hilarious thing is this: My views on God and religion are within a degree or two of Einstein's whether or not he chose to use the word atheist or agnostic or wisely abstained from being labeled at all.

If someone wants to refer to the underlying laws of physics as God, then fine. I'm down with that God-- though I think God would be more. If someone wants to use God talk when referencing the mysterious or the awe that humans can feel toward existence and the cosmos, I'm down with that too. I also am not offended when mathematicians and physicists use religious language (I know atheists who do this for effect).

Einstein said that he was and always had been an atheist when viewed from the perspective of a Jesuit priest.

Now I am on this Mormon message board and Mormons believe in a mammal God, a fully physical male God, complete with nose, teeth, nipples, body hair, and toenails. He lives near Kolob and so on.

So from the viewpoint of a Mormon, I am an atheist. But perhaps I am not an atheist from the viewpoint of someone who holds Einsteinian views.

You want to recruit Einstein against me (via the supposed anti-Mormon critic Kevin Graham?) That's funny given where Mormonism is on the spectrum of views about God and where I am (and were hawking, Einstein and the like are also). My views on God surely differ from Einstein's some, but not as stunningly as do yours.

Quiz: What did Einstein refer to as "childish superstitions"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may...cience.religion

[Bill Hamblin]

You really believe that? Which relevant fact about Einstein do you think I need to be schooled on?

That's the same Kevin Graham that is certain the Gee and Nibley play games (and are wrong about the BoA) and the same Kevin Graham who thinks that Brent MetCalfe routinely kicks butts here. He even claims that Gee lies.

Kevin will love this.

It's funny how, for you two, the answer to the question of who is kicking whose butt, is largely a matter of figuring out who you wish would be getting their butt kicked.

Kevin is all bluster on the Einstein thing and much else. Have you any idea what he (Kevin) believes about God? What great point did he make?

The hilarious thing is this: My views on God and religion are within a degree or two of Einstein's whether or not he chose to use the word atheist or agnostic or wisely abstained from being labeled at all.

If someone wants to refer to the underlying laws of physics as God, then fine. I'm down with that God-- though I think God would be more. If someone wants to use God talk when referencing the mysterious or the awe that humans can feel toward existence and the cosmos, I'm down with that too. I also am not offended when mathematicians and physicists use religious language (I know atheists who do this for effect).

Einstein said that he was and always had been an atheist when viewed from the perspective of a Jesuit priest.

Now I am on this Mormon message board and Mormons believe in a mammal God, a fully physical male God, complete with nose, teeth, nipples, body hair, and toenails. He lives near Kolob and so on.

So from the viewpoint of a Mormon, I am an atheist. But perhaps I am not an atheist from the viewpoint of someone who holds Einsteinian views.

You want to recruit Einstein against me (via the supposed anti-Mormon critic Kevin Graham?) That's funny given where Mormonism is on the spectrum of views about God and where I am (and were hawking, Einstein and the like are also). My views on God surely differ from Einstein's some, but not as stunningly as do yours.

Quiz: What did Einstein refer to as "childish superstitions"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may...cience.religion

Note to Tarski: We're teasing you. Smiley faces = teasing. Get it?

Note to self: Tarski seems to have an incurable case of ludicritus drollarium; don't tease him any more. In fact, don't talk to him any more.

PS Is somebody kicking somebody's butt some where? Gee, I'm sorry I missed it.

[Bender]

This is what I've been asking, but apparently the answer is they change the interpretation of what they thought they once knew.

Reinterpretation is very common for us all, and is a positive thing. When one comes across new information re-evaluating ones interpretations may be necessary. You feel your spiritual interpretations or meanings you have assigned them trump all other information or evidence, while others may think differently. For myself I first recognized like some other believing members that the spiritual is not very reliable for discovering the truth of certain claims. This took years to recognize so when new information or evidence came to my attention I could not simply say the spiritual trumps everything.

There has been discussion which seems to assume if a faithful member doesn't thoroughly study every detail of the anti-Mormon literature they really aren't enlightened enough to make an "unbiased" decision about the church's claims. However, I doubt by the same token they have given as much time and thought to all the positive information out there that explains or at least questions the validity of the anti claims.

This is generally true for most issues religious or otherwise. I'm not sure why you think LDS issues should be any different. Why do you even care if your spiritual experiences trump all physical evidence. I also doubt you really know how much those who no longer believe certain LDS claims have spent reading and studying the information provided by the church and apologists.

Anti-Mormon literature is often very hate filled and negative. Dwelling too much on it will remove whatever spirit one might have left. It is sufficient to know the arguments and one can easily peruse the anti stuff to get this. Just as I don't like to be around negative people, because they bring others down, so I don't like to dwell on negative and hateful rhetoric. That's not naive, it's not unenlightened; it's just plain common sense.

Most faithful LDS have been confronted by doubts, loss of faith, and times of great weakness. If they haven't been they will be. They have a choice. They can fill their minds with those things which are dark and negative or those things which bring light and lift up. What they choose to dwell on will determine what direction they go. Despite all the arguments, the evidence or the questions that remain unanswered, it all comes down to what the Spirit reveals. those who can't accept the Spirit will find ways to rationalize and change the evidence of past experience to fit their current paradigm. I find it very sad that some will throw out all the beauty they once found and replace it with ugliness which is of their own creation and interpretation.

Some of the literature provided by some critics is definitely negative and hate filled. I spent little time with these. Most of my time was spent on apologetic material. Some like yourself think your interpretation of the spiritual is all that matters, while I guess some of us have a different perspective. I can accept that I may be wrong, and have no problem with others having a different opinion, just in case their right.

[Abulafia]

Deborah said:

This is what I've been asking, but apparently the answer is they change the interpretation of what they thought they once knew.

Probably true.

There has been discussion which seems to assume if a faithful member doesn't thoroughly study every detail of the anti-Mormon literature they really aren't enlightened enough to make an "unbiased" decision about the church's claims. However, I doubt by the same token they have given as much time and thought to all the positive information out there that explains or at least questions the validity of the anti claims.

I would agree with that. Of all my active friends I doubt there is one that has bothered to learn as much about LDS history as I have (and that's saying something because I don't know much compared to the scholars who post here active and inactive/non-member). The reasons for this are complex I think, but probably include apathy, laziness, avoidance, contentment.

The reason I don't spend as much time nowadays on faith promoting history is because I am well aware of what it contained or what it used to contain anyway. In all my years of activity that's what I was given. I've been there, done that, and got the T-shirt and became slightly sceptical of it. I do try, however to see the history of the church from both a faith promoting and a not so faith promoting view point. Above all, it's nice to have a balance.

I read an article on the Jupiter Talisman the other day, and became intrigued, and then read how the rumour spread (Reed Durham) and then read a modern apologetic essay on why Joseph probably didn't have a Talisman on his person the day he died. I'm not convinced that Bidamon or his son would have wanted to have made it up, but I have bothered to try and see the event from more angles than Bill McKeever's.

Just as I don't like to be around negative people, because they bring others down, so I don't like to dwell on negative and hateful rhetoric. That's not naive, it's not unenlightened; it's just plain common sense.

I disregard most evangelical anti-mormon literature, because I have come to feel that many of the truth claims of christianity itself are weak and should be open to scrutiny. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. However, I sat up and took note when life long members started writing in a scholarly fashion, backed up by sources, about the history of the Mormon Faith.

Deborah, to what extent should a persons faith be based on ignorance? I don't really understand the milk/meat analogy. Sure, this life is like looking through a glass darkly and we'll never have a perfect knowledge of anything really. But how dark should that glass be?

If I ever come back to church (and I doubt that could ever happen) then at least I would come back empowered by knowlege rather than wallowing in ignorance. It frustrates me no end that my friends judge my decision to leave the church yet I can't have an open conversation as to why, for fear of upsetting the balance of their faith.

When I tried with my visiting teachers, they stopped visiting, started writing letters and one quietly stated over the phone...'but that's apostate'. I'm on a hiding to nothing and just make people want to avoid me because I become dangerous. They don't want their faith questioned or lessened by the likes of me. If they knew more, and they should, as life long members, then I would be on safer ground.

Most faithful LDS have been confronted by doubts, loss of faith, and times of great weakness. If they haven't been they will be. They have a choice. They can fill their minds with those things which are dark and negative or those things which bring light and lift up. What they choose to dwell on will determine what direction they go. Despite all the arguments, the evidence or the questions that remain unanswered, it all comes down to what the Spirit reveals. those who can't accept the Spirit will find ways to rationalize and change the evidence of past experience to fit their current paradigm. I find it very sad that some will throw out all the beauty they once found and replace it with ugliness which is of their own creation and interpretation.

Why do you see a loss of faith in mormonism as equal to a mind concentrating on the dark and negative. I don't agree with that. To try and have a more rounded view of the LDS faith and its origins is just that, it doesn't need to come with baggage, unless you give it that baggage.

You know what, one of the big errors that I think many religions make (not just mormonism) is when protecting the organisation becomes more important than truth. I believe all religion's that become big and powerful are guilty of it, and to be honest it puts me off religion in general.

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth to me seem simple, love yourself, love people, try and be good, try not to be hypocritical, treat other people and things with kindness and respect, be peaceful, be forgiving, don't be arrogant, respect your parents, concentrate on bettering yourself rather than try to better others. It's all there. Why do humans want to make it so complex and inaccessible and available to only a few? His message seems universal and pragmatic.