Chapel Mormons

[Daniel Peterson]

Once again you prove my point...

As you have just demonstrated mine beyond any reasonable doubt!

QED.

Case closed. My triumph is complete and absolute.

[WalkerW]

I find it strange that those who were members of a church whose founder taught "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" and whose doctrine places emphasis on agency and personal accountability leave the church because it didn't spoon feed them everything.

"Didn't you get the memo?"

[Markk]

As you have just demonstrated mine beyond any reasonable doubt!

QED.

Case closed. My triumph is complete and absolute.

Hi Dan,

Again, read the responses to my post, it's all about the person and "it's their fault", at all cost protect the church and it's "survival", even if it means throwing those who have questions, or question it's authority under the bus. Nobody here is talking about Spoon feeding anybody, the reality of it is that people want simple truths when taught, not half truths painting a picture that is not the whole truth.

By your saying my experience is "weird" shows a real lack of understanding of a real problem in the LDS leadership in communicating with the whole of it's membership. I have alot of family in Utah who are in leadership and are very "TBM" and there is a ever widening in there families between how they were raised and what they were taught and what they believe now, and as a bishop you have to see this. My brother inlaw who is a bishop in the Springville area is very concerned with this. A high percentage of their (our generation) children, are falling aside and are just tired of this attitude, they are tired of portraying an image that just isn't real. They go to church on Sunday, they believe the gospel as a whole, but beyond that they are sick of it. I talked with my nieces and nephews, I see there face book pages...it is a real problem and it goes along with this very same attitude about this subject. Maybe there is a missing link in the internet Mormons vs the chapel Mormons, maybe they should be called " I'm a Mormon because I was raised Mormon Mormons".

When you said that the case is closed, you hit the nail on the head, in your mind it is, however in reality the case is getting wider and wider and the LDS trust in their leadership is getting...less trusting.

Take care

Mark

[juliann]

When you said that the case is closed, you hit the nail on the head, in your mind it is, however in reality the case is getting wider and wider and the LDS trust in their leadership is getting...less trusting.

The antis can get inside those Mormons' heads and know everything they think or feel about the church.....while claiming they had no idea about all that hidden church history. Interesting.

[wenglund]

The antis can get inside those Mormons' heads and know everything they think or feel about the church.....while claiming they had no idea about all that hidden church history. Interesting.

A case of selective clairvoyance?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WalkerW]

"it's their fault",

I guess I could use the same logic and say that people like you are all about "it's the church's fault." But that would be unproductive.

at all cost protect the church and it's "survival"

"At all costs?" Yes, the discovery of Joseph Smith's pistol will certainly sweep the church's legs out from under it...

even if it means throwing those who have questions, or question it's authority under the bus.

Oh, please. I ask questions all the time. So does almost every Mormon on this board. And I'm willing to bet that as a scholar, Dr. Peterson has to as well.

not half truths painting a picture that is not the whole truth.

How is not mentioning every detail of Joseph Smith's death take away from the fact that he was murdered along with his brother?

By your saying my experience is "weird" shows a real lack of understanding of a real problem in the LDS leadership in communicating with the whole of it's membership.

Either that or he finds it weird that the gun incident set you on the path to apostasy. I'm personally baffled by it. I cannot understand why that shocks people.

an image that just isn't real

I can understand this concern, though it is hardly narrowed to Mormons. Fairly recent articles have been written about this, but dealing with Christianity as a whole.

"I'm a Mormon because I was raised Mormon Mormons"

Kind of like "I'm a Catholic because I was raised Catholic Catholic" or "I'm Agnostic Because My Parents Never Took Me to Church When I Was Young Agnostic?"

the LDS trust in their leadership is getting...less trusting.

So says the non-member

[Calm]

but it has nothing to do with what was actually taught to us both directly in class and indirectly in our everyday life in the church

"our everyday life in the church"

Just how long was your "everyday life" in the church on which you base this opinion?

[Daniel Peterson]

Again, read the responses to my post, it's all about the person and "it's their fault",

Well, dear fellow, if something pertaining to the Church's history is on public display and has been written about and spoken about and published about and has been well-known to very many of us for years, it may just possibly perhaps maybe not be the Church's fault that somebody is unaware of it. I mean, you know, it's, like, conceivable?

at all cost protect the church and it's "survival",

Good grief, Markk.

Do you think you could inject a little more melodrama into this?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, you certainly can:

even if it means throwing those who have questions, or question it's authority under the bus.

I've been teaching at the Church's flagship university for nearly a quarter of a century now, and in the Church itself for considerably longer. I give a score or two score firesides each year. I answer many e-mails each week. I've never tolerated questions yet, by gum, and I don't intend to start now.

Yep, you've sure got me pegged. LOL.

When you said that the case is closed, you hit the nail on the head, in your mind it is

Whoosh! Right over your head!

I was, of course, poking fun at your silly rejoinder that I had, once again, somehow proven you right.

Anybody can claim triumphant victory, especially when he doesn't have to explain what he won or how he won it.

For example, I've just beaten you again. You've been humiliated by my overwhelming prowess, and are now groveling in abject defeat. My irresistible brilliance has left you no alternative but the obvious desperation that you now feel, and that all of your future replies to me will illustrate.

[Bob Crockett]

You can give reference to all the material that told the story of the pistol, but it has nothing to do with what was actually taught to us both directly in class and indirectly in our everyday life in the church.

This "pistol" criticism mystifies me. I have been taught this story from my earliest memory; at least from seminary at the earliest.

Some of my favorite LDS-authored books express no embarrassment about this story, and treat it as if it is commonly known. A member of the priesthood committee, Henry A. Smith, treats it fully in Smith, The Day They Martyred the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft 1963). A wildly popular book, N.B. Lundwall, The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: 1952) treats it in enthusiastic detail.

I've lost my copy of Joseph F. Smith, Essentials in Church History, but I'm certain that it discussed it well. After I lost my copy, and before recent scholarship, I relied upon a work used as a textbook at BYU, Ivan J. Barrett, Joseph Smith and the Restoration: A History of the LDS Church to 1846 (Provo: 1967) where there is holding back on the issue.

Then there's Thomas S. Monson's discussion of the incident in the June 1994 Ensign in "The Message: By Example. "The Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren, and yet he could tell from the pounding on the door that this mob would storm that door and would kill John Taylor and Willard Richards in an attempt to kill him."

Indeed, I think this incident has been made one of the more controversial incidents by critics -- not that it has been suppressed, but that it occurred. Fawn Brodie and T.B.H. Stenhouse describe the incident in detail but do not comment upon the seeming inconsistency between being led like a lamb to the slaughter and using a pistol in jail. I think the first time I recall anybody making a big deal of it was in the Tanners' work. Jerald & Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality (5th ed, 1987: Salt Lake City). Many other critics since then have picked uponi on this. I note that the Tanners, to discuss the issue, rely basically upon official church sources -- most notably, Roberts, History of the Church.

For some reason, however, the argument of "inconsistency" has morphed into "suppression." I think it is merely an excuse. When the Church treats it in its manuals, textbooks and other authors do so in similar fashion, it is no big deal. But when the critics pick up on it somehow we forget all that has been said before.

It has been stated many times that Jesus Himself went into the Garden of Gethsemane with armed retainers. How could he have not known that his apostles were not armed?

[Markk]

The antis can get inside those Mormons' heads and know everything they think or feel about the church.....while claiming they had no idea about all that hidden church history. Interesting.

Hi Julie,

I'm just as Mormon as you are, I'm just not LDS. My world view was formed on being raised in the Mormon church with Mormon values. I am grateful in many ways for my up bringing, yet it doesn't change the fact the there are major problems in it's History and doctrines, and that the Internet and folks like the Tanners have forced embarrassing and contraction out in the open. If your implying that I am being dishonest about not having any idea about things like JS murder, or MMM,..etc your just proving my point that LDS members and leadership don't have a clue of what is going on around them. Do you actually believe all Mormons believe like you Julie and that they all "think" and "feel" the same "about the church"?...now that is interesting.

Take care

Mark

[Bsix]

Obviously anyone who has not heard the gun aspect of the murder of Joseph Smith feels that it is the Church's fault that the fact was not drummed into their head.

I suggest that those who loses faith over matters such as these may not have had a firm and faithful testimonial foundation.

Matthew 7:27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I do not intend to suppose the faith (of lack of) foundation of anyone on this message board...but losing testimony and leaving the Gospel over such trivial historic points does suggest a fragile or surface belief.

Regards,

Six

[Calm]

My world view was formed on being raised in the Mormon church with Mormon values

So you were a baptized, practicing member of the Church? For how long? How old were you when you left?

[notHagoth7]

For some reason, however, the argument of "inconsistency" has morphed into "suppression." I think it is merely an excuse.

I think it is much more than an excuse. I see it as driving a wedge between LDS leadership and members.

The "suppression" meme is nothing new:

...And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

He denigrates wisdom to foolishness. Truth to mere tradition. And mocks instead of honors their forefathers.

Then, he slanders their teachers as self-serving, power-hungry people who want to keep them in the dark.

[notHagoth7]

...your just proving my point that LDS members and leadership don't have a clue of what is going on around them...

Mark,

Any chance you could find a way, not only to ACT more respectful, but to BE more respectful of other people's beliefs?

[Markk]

So you were a baptized, practicing member of the Church? For how long? How old were you when you left?

Born and raised in the church 5th generations both sides, stopped believing that the church was true when I was 34, hung around and played church ball until I was around 36. But all this really has nothing to do with the false image the church has painted for their members, even if through a slow assimilation.

Mark

[Calm]

Born and raised in the church 5th generations both sides, stopped believing that the church was true when I was 34, hung around and played church ball until I was around 36. But all this really has nothing to do with the false image the church has painted for their members, even if through a slow assimilation.

Mark

So you were baptized (sorry, but I've known born and raised and even attending that were not baptized)? Did you attend seminary? Did you go to Institute? Did you attend BYU or another church college? What priesthood level did you reach? Elder? Did you go on a mission? Receive your endowment? Married in the temple?

While irrelevant to the actual claims, you are using your background to add credibility to your claims so I think it's appropriate to detail what your experience actually was. That you did all of the above is sadly no guarantee that you were aware of what was typically being taught in the Church, I have evidence in my own family of someone born and raised, attended all the right classes, even studied the texts pretty extensively at times but still demonstrates some significant gaps...gaps not present in other family members raised in the same community of experiences. Still, it does raise the probability if you were involved in typical activities, that you were exposed to typical teachings and beliefs in a typical fashion. So I am asking about the typical way LDS measure typical activity and exposure in the above questions.

[Markk]

So you were baptized (sorry, but I've known born and raised and even attending that were not baptized)? Did you attend seminary? Did you go to Institute? Did you attend BYU or another church college? What priesthood level did you reach? Elder? Did you go on a mission? Receive your endowment? Married in the temple?

While irrelevant to the actual claims, you are using your background to add credibility to your claims so I think it's appropriate to detail what your experience actually was. That you did all of the above is sadly no guarantee that you were aware of what was typically being taught in the Church, I have evidence in my own family of someone born and raised, attended all the right classes, even studied the texts pretty extensively at times but still demonstrates some significant gaps...gaps not present in other family members raised in the same community of experiences. Still, it does raise the probability if you were involved in typical activities, that you were exposed to typical teachings and beliefs in a typical fashion. So I am asking about the typical way LDS measure typical activity and exposure in the above questions.

Hi Cal

Like I said, it does not matter, I went to seminary, I was a priest, I didn't go to a LDS college or go on a Mission, and I married a non member so obviously I never went to the temple, I did have my children blessed. I believed with all my heart that Joseph was a true prophet of God, that the LDS church was the only true church, That the living prophet held the keys, and I would have died rather that deny my faith, that said, what difference does that make and what does any of that have to do with the LDS being real with their history? Seems like...again, your looking to fault the person listening, instead of the person teaching.

When I learned that JS had a gun and shot some of those that were trying to murder him I told my father and an uncle, both of them having done all the things you said below, and much more ( my father no mission or LDS college...served in WW2) had never heard of this and basically called me a liar in a nice way, I gave them a reference and told them to look it up and they did, and I'm not sure if they still believed it. Remember that the church taught, at least while I was a member that JS went like...

[volgadon]

Funny, the gun is one of those things I knew about as a kid. Are there people who don't know? Yes, just as a study in the UK had shown that a significant amount of school children thought that Hitler led Britain in WW2. Doesn't mean that the truth wasn't taught or that it was suppressed.

Like a lamb to the slaughter is about Joseph's arrest.

[Deborah]

In all those lesson never...ever...was I taught that he had a gun an shot three men.

You do realize that Joseph did not take the gun with him? One of the guards gave him the gun while imprisoned as the mob was starting to gather. The fact that he was trying to protect his friends shouldn't change anything about "going like a lamb to the slaughter." Joseph was ready to die but that doesn't mean he wanted his friends to die.

[Daniel Peterson]

If your implying that I am being dishonest about not having any idea about things like JS murder, or MMM,..etc your just proving my point

It seems that everything we do always proves all of your points.

Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that you're lying. I believe you when you claim that you were ignorant.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

Well, dear fellow, if something pertaining to the Church's history is on public display and has been written about and spoken about and published about and has been well-known to very many of us for years, it may just possibly perhaps maybe not be the Church's fault that somebody is unaware of it. I mean, you know, it's, like, conceivable?

It's not just pertaining to church history Dan, it is church history. Your caviler attitude would be like putting Oswald's rifle in a museum in Podunk USA and never mention JFK was shot, only died, give me a break. But wait a minute, it's my fault because as a child buying into Joseph going to death like a lamb to slaughter.

Whats kind of ironic Dan is when a "critic" brings up an old quote from an old book the book is down played...remember our Gospel through the Ages discussion...yet when you want to prove a point you bring these books out of the attic and say it was there to read.

Good grief, Markk.

Do you think you could inject a little more melodrama into this?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, you certainly can:

Never thought you would ask...Lol... It's not melodrama Dan, it's just they way it is, it is the same "survival of the church" mentality that mandates scholars to write about men going to battle on the back of deers, pigs, and tapirs, or saying north really means south, or that the Hill Cumorah isn't where JS said it was, or....?

I've been teaching at the Church's flagship university for nearly a quarter of a century now, and in the Church itself for considerably longer. I give a score or two score firesides each year. I answer many e-mails each week. I've never tolerated questions yet, by gum, and I don't intend to start now.

Yep, you've sure got me pegged. LOL.

Great context Dan, in other words huh?

Whoosh! Right over your head!

I was, of course, poking fun at your silly rejoinder that I had, once again, somehow proven you right.

Anybody can claim triumphant victory, especially when he doesn't have to explain what he won or how he won it.

For example, I've just beaten you again. You've been humiliated by my overwhelming prowess, and are now groveling in abject defeat. My irresistible brilliance has left you no alternative but the obvious desperation that you now feel, and that all of your future replies to me will illustrate.

LoL, arrogance is a virtue in your case, I feel like I'm always sitting at a table on a hill, with a girl with a blind fold on in between us, with you trying to figure out what glass of wine to drink from? I need to learn to never mess with a Sicilian.

I suppose we will never actually discuss the topic with any substance, it's much easier to divert with these silly rabbit trails of wit.

Take care my friend, happy halloween

Mark

[Markk]

It seems that everything we do always proves all of your points.

Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that you're lying. I believe you when you claim that you were ignorant.

I have allot of points, and yes I was/am ignorant of allot of things, not all knowing yet.

Mark

[Markk]

You do realize that Joseph did not take the gun with him? One of the guards gave him the gun while imprisoned as the mob was starting to gather. The fact that he was trying to protect his friends shouldn't change anything about "going like a lamb to the slaughter." Joseph was ready to die but that doesn't mean he wanted his friends to die.

Yes I know the story, at least as told in the History of the Church. My point (another one Dan) is that Jesus could had had a legion of angels get Him out of His sacrifice, He stopped Peter, yet I was taught that JS went just as Jesus did to his death, which just is not true.

Mark

[volgadon]

The crucial difference is that it was Jesus alone who was being arrested and would be killed, not his friends.

It's not just pertaining to church history Dan, it is church history. Your caviler attitude would be like putting Oswald's rifle in a museum in Podunk USA and never mention JFK was shot, only died, give me a break. But wait a minute, it's my fault because as a child buying into Joseph going to death like a lamb to slaughter.

What a lousy analogy. A better one would be that not everyone knows JFK's and Connally's position, or that a bystander was also hit.

Joseph's gun is hardly the most important part!

Anyway, here is further proof of a church coverup. In not one single lesson does it ever discuss what colour clothing the prophet wore that day!!!

And for the record, I have been in lessons where the gun was mentioned.

[Nofear]

So, when did Markk get on a casual first name basis with Dr. Peterson?