Chapel Mormons

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, what happens when his experience is validated by those exMormons that didn't miss a lesson? Maybe they are saying. . . you didn't miss anything at all.

Markk is claiming the Church didn't inform him about something. If he didn't attend meetings/classes enough to be eligible for priesthood advancement, doesn't it seem the onus for his being ill-informed would be on him rather than the Church?

If that is the case, the experience of other apostates would not have a bearing.

[Redefined]

Obviously. Advancement in the priesthood on the normal schedule at, say, sixteen and eighteen or nineteen doesn't make one a scholar.

But somebody raised in the Church who is still a priest at age thirty-four? It's conceivable, but very unlikely, that such a person has been a faithful reader of the scriptures and Church history since his ordination as a priesthood eighteen or nineteen years before, a dedicated student in Gospel Doctrine classes (let alone Institute classes and/or BYU Church history classes), and an active attender at Church worship services and classes and firesides. Not impossible, but quite improbable. It simply doesn't happen much. Not in my experience, anyway.

And when such a person's claims that the Church has failed to communicate something are so easily falsified, that fact tends to put the responsibility rather solidly on the inattentive, inactive non-reader rather than on the Church.

I'll refer you as well to post #446.

[mysteryman]

It is not uncommon for someone to find a new interest in Church history (from jaundiced sources) after he is already out or on the way out and to claim he was kept in the dark. It fits a pattern of self-validation/rationalization.

Sort of reminds me when Born-again Christians harass their family and friends who are looking into Mormonism. Then after the individual converts, he attends new member meetings, testimony meetings, an may seek after Mormon apologetic resources for self-validation to rationalize the conversion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess you may have posted this while I was posting my last response.

Daniel Peterson expressed it better than I. I hope you caught his post.

[Redefined]

Markk is claiming the Church didn't inform him about something. If he didn't attend meetings/classes enough to be eligible for priesthood advancement, doesn't it seem the onus for his being ill-informed would be on him rather than the Church?

If that is the case, the experience of other apostates would not have a bearing.

If exMormons are saying they weren't "informed" just as Markk is claiming he wasn't "informed" then you can assume that even if he had been to every single class or event, it would still be possible that he was never "informed".

[Scott Lloyd]

Sort of reminds me when Born-again Christians harass their family and friends who are looking into Mormonism. Then after the individual converts, he attends new member meetings, testimony meetings, an may seek after Mormon apologetic resources for self-validation to rationalize the conversion.

I don't recall encountering a Mormon convert who is on a public crusade to discredit/vilify his former faith group as a rationalization for his conversion.

[Scott Lloyd]

If exMormons are saying they weren't "informed" just as Markk is claiming he wasn't "informed" then you can assume that even if he had been to every single class or event, it would still be possible that he was never "informed".

Conceivable, but not probable. I hope you caught Dan's post.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think your all making too much out of that he was a Priest. It is very possible he went apostate at 18 prior to becoming an Elder, but had been active up to that point. Mark would have to tell us, but it really is not relevant. That he did not know something that most do is not that uncommon. He may have not listened or was absent those days. I did not know Joseph was a polygamist until I was 16 attending Seminary in High School. I am not sure why I had not heard it up to that point, but it certainly was not a case of it not being stated or hidden from me. I also did not know that the Book of Abraham had its origins in Egyptian papyri until I was on a mission. Why I had missed that I do not know. It is not uncommon to be active and to miss certain items.

But the crucial fact here is that none of this was the Church's fault. I could tell my children five score times to mow the lawn and/or take the trash out, but, very commonly, they still hadn't "heard" it. An appropriately-placed video camera would easily have confirmed the fact that I had told them. Yet they didn't know. My fault for not telling, or theirs for not listening? On Markk's version of things, evidently mine.

Well, what happens when his experience is validated by those exMormons that didn't miss a lesson? Maybe they are saying. . . you didn't miss anything at all.

But, as has been demonstrated abundantly here, the secret tale of the hidden pistol of Joseph Smith has been concealed by the Church in numerous periodicals, books, films, displays, traveling shows, and the like -- continuously, since 1844. If people didn't know about it, it's their fault. They weren't paying attention.

[mysteryman]

If exMormons are saying they weren't "informed" just as Markk is claiming he wasn't "informed" then you can assume that even if he had been to every single class or event, it would still be possible that he was never "informed".

Yes it is possible he was never informed and did attend every week. I know that I was aware that Joseph had a gun, but I am not certain if I ever learned it in church. But Mark is trying to claim that the church purposely with holds this bit of information from being taught, but he has now been PROVEN wrong multiple times.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll refer you as well to post #446.

And I refer you to post #451.

[mysteryman]

But the crucial fact here is that none of this was the Church's fault. I could tell my children five score times to mow the lawn and/or take the trash out, but, very commonly, they still hadn't "heard" it. An appropriately-placed video camera would easily have confirmed the fact that I had told them. Yet they didn't know. My fault for not telling, or theirs for not listening? On Markk's version of things, evidently mine.

I agree it is not the churches fault Mark did not hear of this issue that I guess he finds so important it should be mentioned at the beginning of every Gospel Doctrine Class and at every conference to ensure they are informing people.

[Redefined]

But the crucial fact here is that none of this was the Church's fault. I could tell my children five score times to mow the lawn and/or take the trash out, but, very commonly, they still hadn't "heard" it. An appropriately-placed video camera would easily have confirmed the fact that I had told them. Yet they didn't know. My fault for not telling, or theirs for not listening? On Markk's version of things, evidently mine.

But, as has been demonstrated abundantly here, the secret tale of the hidden pistol of Joseph Smith has been concealed by the Church in numerous periodicals, books, films, displays, traveling shows, and the like -- continuously, since 1844. If people didn't know about it, it's their fault. They weren't paying attention.

Here is a quote from somebody that I have really come to admire myself. I think he says anything better than I could ever say 100 percent of the time.

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[mysteryman]

I don't recall encountering a Mormon convert who is on a public crusade to discredit/vilify his former faith group as a rationalization for his conversion.

No, but many seek self-validation to rationalize their conversion through apologetic resources and testimony meetings. The point is, everyone seeks self-validation to rationalize their decision, whether it be the ex-Mormons or the Mormon converts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just feel it is a bit presumptuous to imply that one's advancement in the priesthood would suggest that he is more willing to submit to outside sources.

You are correct. I am waiting to here what Markk has to say on the matter. I speculated, perhaps I shouldn't have but I thought some of this information is interesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

Here is a quote from somebody that I have really come to admire myself. I think he says anything better than I could ever say 100 percent of the time.

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here is a quote from somebody that I have really come to admire myself. I think he says anything better than I could ever say 100 percent of the time.

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[ttribe]

Here is a quote from somebody that I have really come to admire myself. I think he says anything better than I could ever say 100 percent of the time.

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[mysteryman]

I don't recall encountering a Mormon convert who is on a public crusade to discredit/vilify his former faith group as a rationalization for his conversion.

Actually I have encountered Mormon converts that do something similar to what you are suggesting here. What they do is they go on a mission for the church to tell those in their former faith and all others that their creeds are an abomination, they have no authority to act in gods name, that there church leaders are all corrupt having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, that their church teaches the commandments of man, that their baptism did not count in the eyes of god, that the pope is not gods true mouthpiece on earth, that their baptism as infant was an evil practice, that they are wrong in thinking the Bible is infallible, etc. So yeah, I guess I do know these types of people.

[Daniel Peterson]

This quote presumes the existence of such a "policy". I challenge you to find such a policy.

There is no such policy.

There are some communities of anti- and ex-Mormons, though, for whom belief in such a policy is an article of firm and even passionate faith.

One would have thought that the publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows and the Joseph Smith Papers project would have laid the superstition to rest but, just as newspapers still carry horoscopes, certain critics cling to this comforting illusion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This quote presumes the existence of such a "policy". I challenge you to find such a policy.

Ooooh, good point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually I have encountered Mormon converts that do something similar to what you are suggesting here. What they do is they go on a mission for the church to tell those in their former faith and all others that their creeds are an abomination, they have no authority to act in gods name, that there church leaders are all corrupt having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, that their church teaches the commandments of man, that their baptism did not count in the eyes of god, that the pope is not gods true mouthpiece on earth, that their baptism as infant was an evil practice, that they are wrong in thinking the Bible is infallible, etc. So yeah, I guess I do know these types of people.

What mission did you serve?

[ttribe]

There is no such policy.

There are some communities of anti- and ex-Mormons, though, for whom belief in such a policy is an article of firm and even passionate faith.

One would have thought that the publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows and the Joseph Smith Papers project would have laid the superstition to rest but, just as newspapers still carry horoscopes, certain critics cling to this comforting illusion.

Shhhhhh....you run the risk of bursting certain bubbles.

[Redefined]

There's no accounting for taste. You may well like that quotation, but I simply can't agree that the writings of Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Thomas Alexander, Carol Cornwall Madsen, Richard Bushman, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Grant Underwood, Jill Mulvay Derr, Steven Harper, Ronald Esplin, etc. -- many of them friends of mine -- are dishonest. And I defy you or Francis Nelson Henderson (whoever that is) to demonstrate that they are.

And, in any case, it has been demonstrated here, conclusively and in spades, that Markk's suggestion that the Church is responsible for his ignorance about the pistol at Carthage Jail is absurd and false. There is simply no basis for his accusation, and you shouldn't be echoing it.

Well, I acknowledge your right to think that those men individuals you named are honest. . . just as it is my right to admire the intellects that I do. I "echo" only validation that the experience isn't unique to himself. Many ExMormons feel this way. Mr. Henderson's claim that I quoted above, is perfectly stated as to my opinion of the church's honesty. His whole exit statement resonated with me in every way.

Edited for obvious error.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually I have encountered Mormon converts that do something similar to what you are suggesting here. What they do is they go on a mission for the church to tell those in their former faith and all others that their creeds are an abomination, they have no authority to act in gods name, that there church leaders are all corrupt having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, that their church teaches the commandments of man, that their baptism did not count in the eyes of god, that the pope is not gods true mouthpiece on earth, that their baptism as infant was an evil practice, that they are wrong in thinking the Bible is infallible, etc. So yeah, I guess I do know these types of people.

I don't buy it that the standard missionary message (which you are implying here) is even close to being comparable to what anti-Mormons do in seeking to vilify Mormonism.

Nor do I see it as being the same as using a rendition of Mormon doctrine from apostate and hostile sources to rationalize one's apostasy or to nurture an ill-founded belief that one was kept in the dark about things one had little or no interest in in the first place.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I acknowledge your right to think that those men you named are honest.

In implying that they are dishonest (which you seem to be doing here) you are obliged to substantiate such a claim.

By the way, not all of the scholars Daniel named are men. I suspect you are not even acquainted with their work.