Chapel Mormons

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Frankly, my upbringing didn't cultivate anything but naivety. Call me a very trusting and willing child. . . there were so many like me out there. I feel like everyone wants to say, "look at the fool!" HAHAHA what an idiot. . . but I guess I am an advocate for all of us "idiots" that didn't get it.

This is a totaly separte issue. There is nothing wrong with being trusting, and as you said is part of the problem. Not everybody deserves your trust. I don't think you are a fool at all. I think that you trusted what some one said and believed they had your best interest at heart, when in fact they did not.

I suggest that you continue to hang around here or visit the more freindly LDS boards too.

To my knowldge no one here called you an idiot.

[Calm]

but I guess I am an advocate for all of us "idiots" that didn't get it.

An advocate for what exactly?

You have yet to state what class the gun incident needs to be taught in that it isn't already being taught in....

You are not much of an advocate if you can't come up with anything to advocate about except that we should all feel pity and make excuses for you and those like you.

Call me a very trusting and willing child

But apparently not one that paid close attention much of the time if your posts are accurate portrayals of your knowledge level of that time.

Honestly, your "trusting and willing" behaviour seems to have just switched allegiance to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Frankly, my upbringing didn't cultivate anything but naivety. Call me a very trusting and willing child. . . there were so many like me out there. I feel like everyone wants to say, "look at the fool!" HAHAHA what an idiot. . . but I guess I am an advocate for all of us "idiots" that didn't get it.

Nobody's calling you an idiot.

When I find I've been in the dark about something, but the information was there all along and I could have had it if I had bothered to access it, it's not my tendency to blame others; rather I accept personal responsibility for my own lack of awareness.

I think that's all anyone here is advocating.

[ttribe]

Nobody's calling you an idiot.

When I find I've been in the dark about something, but the information was there all along and I could have had it if I had bothered to access it, it's not my tendency to blame others; rather I accept personal responsibility for my own lack of awareness.

I think that's all anyone here is advocating.

Agreed.

[Calm]

To my knowldge no one here called you an idiot.

Not me for one, I know plenty of very smart people, geniuses even who are very good at missing important things, let alone the more mundane and even trivial details. Most in my experience just laugh at themselves when it's brought to their attention or if it's more serious curse themselves out. If it's a very big deal, they try and find ways to remedy the situation; if it's not, then they accept the cost of their inattention as worth not having to put effort into something they aren't very interested in.

Very few look around to see who they can point fingers at rather than accepting that making mistakes is a fact of life.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Redefined:

First, by way of clarification I assert that I believe the current Sunday School, seminary and higher CES instruction could definitely stand some improvement. I also keep in mind that (as far as gospel instruction on Sunday is concerned) teaching positions are not filled with professional clergy but with regular members of the Church like me. The manuals and lesson plans are structured with specific purposes in mind, historical inquiry seemingly placed secondarily to the "weightier matters" of preaching Christ and Him crucified, and enjoining Saints to have faith and live the gospel.

Perhaps like you I have sat through some mind-numbing lessons when the teacher apologizes for forgetting to go over the lesson during the week or that they were called at the last minute. I have occasionally cringed during what I self-righteously felt was an inadequate sacrament meeting talk or one that expressed what I believe is false doctrine. I have been caught offguard by various surprises in Church history, such as the "Adam-God" theory or "blood atonement" and wondered if these things were discussed in a Seminary class through which I was writing a note to a girl or sleeping with my head on my desk. In the meantime I also recall all of the Simpsons episodes and Utah Jazz games I've watched, the afternoon naps, the summer water fights, all the music I've listened to, enabling me to sing along to every word with favorite bands.

With all that in mind, I don't mean to ridicule those who have less gospel understanding than me, indeed I often feel dwarfed by others; as Will Rogers said: "everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." I do not wish to lay complete blame of ignorance at the feet of Saints who have felt the Church somehow let them down in regards to disseminating information; as Bushman mentioned in his paper, some feel shocked or misled when they discover what they feel is unflattering aspects of Church history; they can lose trust. I wish to emphasize a key gospel principle enjoining all to take personal responsibility now; to remind us that each must be "anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (D&C 58:26-29).

This is a little bit of my take on personal responsibility and education.

[Scott Lloyd]

Honestly, your "trusting and willing" behaviour seems to have just switched allegiance to me.

It's striking to me how some people who could not be bothered to read a Church history text or attend a seminar or lecture prior to their falling away become voracious consumers of all manner of antagonistic literature afterward. Or they don't endeavor to subject the critics themselves to the same level of scrutiny that the critics apply to Mormonism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

FWIW I don't think all too many who leave the church are very familiar with antagonistic literature either. Just bits and pieces. Chapel antagonists, mostly.

[ttribe]

FWIW I don't think all too many who leave the church are very familiar with antagonistic literature either. Just bits and pieces. Chapel antagonists, mostly.

"Chapel antagonists"...I need a "duck and cover" emoticon for that one.

[Redefined]

It's not just me everyone. Many exMormons feel that the church is less than honest about it's history. . . many, many who have a far greater understanding of the church, and many, many who had very firm foundations. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that these exmormons have a right to feel this way, doesn't change the fact that they do.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This one:

Or this one:

[ttribe]

This one:

Or this one:

Perfect!

[Scott Lloyd]

FWIW I don't think all too many who leave the church are very familiar with antagonistic literature either. Just bits and pieces. Chapel antagonists, mostly.

Yeah, if anything, they build up their storehouse of antagonistic knowledge over time.

Chapel vs. Internet antagonists: What a concept! Maybe Shades could do a poll and a Sunstone presentation.

[ttribe]

It's not just me everyone. Many exMormons feel that the church is less than honest about it's history. . . many, many who have a far greater understanding of the church, and many, many who had very firm foundations. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that these exmormons have a right to feel this way, doesn't change the fact that they do.

I don't believe anyone is denying the existence of such accounts. What we are discussing is whether it is justified. If we, perhaps, can disabuse you of the notion that there is a rational basis for such feelings regarding the Church, perhaps we can disabuse you of some others....

[Redefined]

I don't believe anyone is denying the existence of such accounts. What we are discussing is whether it is justified. If we, perhaps, can disabuse you of the notion that there is a rational basis for such feelings regarding the Church, perhaps we can disabuse you of some others....

I feel our claims are valid. . . as it were, we disagree. . . many of you disagree with me. It is proving to be a complex issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not just me everyone. Many exMormons feel that the church is less than honest about it's history. . . many, many who have a far greater understanding of the church, and many, many who had very firm foundations. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that these exmormons have a right to feel this way, doesn't change the fact that they do.

I think what is at issue is whether their view is valid.

Accepting personal responsibility can be a herculean task that many people never quite accomplish.

[Scott Lloyd]

I feel our claims are valid. . . as it were, we disagree. . . many of you disagree with me. It is proving to be a complex issue.

If it's starting to seem complex, maybe it's because you're coming to realize that the critics are less-than-candid themselves.

[Calm]

It's not just me everyone. Many exMormons feel that the church is less than honest about it's history. . . many, many who have a far greater understanding of the church, and many, many who had very firm foundations. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that these exmormons have a right to feel this way, doesn't change the fact that they do.

So when asked for evidence of a church policy or to point to a class that isn't teaching the gun incident that you think should be taught, your response is to state that you and others feel the Church is less than honest about its history.

If that is the sum total of your argument, there isn't much one can do as far as I can see.

[ttribe]

If it's starting to seem complex, maybe it's because you're coming to realize that the critics are less-than-candid themselves.

Redefined - Scott's statement hits the heart of the matter. Who was really lying? Did you see Wiki Wonka's post just about the gun issue? I guarantee you he can come up with many more on many other "controversial" issues just like this one.

[Deborah]

Did it occur to you to think critically about what the antagonists were saying? To question their reasoning?

This is what I question. Why is it people who admit they are opposed to the church are so easily believed. I really don't get it. It's like the ex-spouse. Why would you ask that person to give a reference for the ex? You know they are going to have a bias that is probably negative.

[Redefined]

So when asked for evidence of a church policy or to point to a class that isn't teaching the gun incident that you think should be taught, your response is to state that you and others feel the Church is less than honest about its history.

If that is the sum total of your argument, there isn't much one can do as far as I can see.

I jumped in here because of the comments being made about Markk's understanding based on his priesthood achievement. I didn't think it was fair to assume that someone would be more likely to use Non-church sources just because of how fast they've advanced as a member. Which was responded that it can help determine because maybe he missed the classes that said such, and I said that if others have had the same experience of not recieving information, then it is probable that Markk wouldn't have recieved that information either even if he did miss classes. So many seasoned, well established members (consequently some are no longer members) have come to this conclusion as I tried to show with a quote from a friend of mine who I really admire. In so doing I was asked about to show where the church has a policy of only revealing "faith-promoting history. I pointed to a source, that was dismissed as twisted. I also tried to show that the teaching of the devil doesn't promote critical thinking. I was told that information about the "gun" was available, and Wiki Wonka even gave an extensive list of sources. I say that some have heard the gun story, some have not. I didn't say the "gun" information was never available. I did say that I never was taught about the "gun" incident. I believe I'm not the only one that was never taught about it. It isn't just this issue that exmormons take issue about. If it were that simple then it would be case closed. If I wasn't bombarded all at once, I may have been clearer in my comments.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not just me everyone. Many exMormons feel that the church is less than honest about it's history. . . many, many who have a far greater understanding of the church, and many, many who had very firm foundations. Whether or not you want to acknowledge that these exmormons have a right to feel this way, doesn't change the fact that they do.

And just because they feel this way doesn't mean that it is justified either.

Look I understand the ackward situations that one might be placed into. I have had them too. I served a mission and I knew a heck of a lot more when I came home than when I left.

Did I get mad at the church because of that? No.

Should I be mad at the church in the future if I happen to discover something that wasn't taught in the past or that I didn't understand when I was 15? I sure hope not.

Should I be mad at the church in 23 years when I am 54 that I had just learned some other piece of history that wasn't taught?

Why do you feel that you need to know everything right now? Why would you give an inane historical point more wieght when making a desicion than you would a life changing pricipal? Ie, a gospel principal?

[Markk]

I don't know. I also don't know how many "teaching manuals" were even published by the Church between 1844 and 1990. No firm conclusions on either question can be drawn from the list to which I provided a link, because it isn't, and doesn't purport to be, a complete account even of all of the publications in which the tale of the pistol was told.

If, despite the continuous rat-a-tat-tat of official Church publications and public presentations and books by Church leaders that mention the story of the pistol between 1844 and 1990 (which, as we have demonstrated here, is only partially represented in the list to which I provided you a link), this question still bothers you, I suggest that you research an answer for it.

And don't forget to take into account the twenty-five or thirty editions of Essentials in Church History -- by Church historian, apostle, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and President of the Church Joseph Fielding Smith -- that were published between 1922 and 1990, but which don't appear in the list to which I provide you a link. It's very possible, even fairly likely, that members of the Church were reading this book during that time.

Also, don't fail to mention Ivan J. Barrett's popular Joseph Smith and the Restoration: A History of the LDS Church to 1846, which was used as a Church history textbook for religion classes at BYU as well as at what are now BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii and throughout the Institute system of the Church. I don't believe that it appears on the list to which I provided you a link. It was first published in 1967, and then appeared in a revised edition in 1973 (and perhaps in others after that), and it fails to tell the story of the pistol on every page except pages 611-614.

Incidentally, the list puts publication of Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, which refuses to teach the story of the pistol on any page except for page 21, in 1994. That is misleading. A second edition was published in 1994. The book first appeared in 1975. Al Gore had not yet invented the Internet in 1975. You were still an uninformed member of the Church in 1975. Marvin Hill was a professor of history at BYU in 1975, and Dallin Oaks was president of the University. President Oaks would go on, roughly a decade later, to become a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which obviously was attempting to hide him away because of its embarrassment and discomfort at the story of the pistol.

.

Hi Dan,

I don't know. I also don't know how many "teaching manuals" were even published by the Church between 1844 and 1990.

OK, So...you don't know if the church has taught this then? Kinda my point all along. I said in my first post that I was never "taught" this Dan...you need to focus on what this is about. And, I am sure the church has taught this, but I don't know when and where.

You keep bringing up that I am claiming that the church is hiding this, where did I say that, again focus on context of why I started questioning the LDS church, it was because I had never heard or had been taught that JS had the gun. If you want to say that I believe the church suppress or fails to teach certain parts of there history and out dated doctrines find, but try to keep in context with what I believe.

Mark

[ttribe]

Hi Dan,

OK, So...you don't know if the church has taught this then? Kinda my point all along. I said in my first post that I was never "taught" this Dan...you need to focus on what this is about. And, I am sure the church has taught this, but I don't know when and where.

You keep bringing up that I am claiming that the church is hiding this, where did I say that, again focus on context of why I started questioning the LDS church, it was because I had never heard or had been taught that JS had the gun. If you want to say that I believe the church suppress or fails to teach certain parts of there history and out dated doctrines find, but try to keep in context with what I believe.

Mark

You have some catching up to do: Post Link 1, Post Link 2, Post Link 3

[Daniel Peterson]

OK, So...you don't know if the church has taught this then? Kinda my point all along.

I never said that I don't know if the Church has taught this.

I know for a fact that it has, in periodicals and displays and presentations and books by Church leaders and lesson manuals and official histories and so on and so forth. Since 1844. I've said this several times before. I've said it for several days. I say it again now. I hope I won't need to repeat it any more.

I said in my first post that I was never "taught" this Dan...you need to focus on what this is about.

Your statement would be more accurate and objective, and much less prejudicial, if you simply said "I never learned this."

I didn't think it was fair to assume that someone would be more likely to use Non-church sources just because of how fast they've advanced as a member.

Did anybody actually claim that?